Hi Wim,

What makes you say that in IPv4 there is no anycast ? All anycase I have
played so far is IPv4 :)

Cheers,
r.

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) <
[email protected]> wrote:

> We will update the draft to highlight the IPv6 anycast behaviour better as
> pointed out by RObert. In IPv4 there is no anycast behaviour and as such
> there should be one option possible.
>
>
>
> On 30/03/15 04:59, "Antoni Przygienda" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but of course I brought it up to show that 'the last one simply
> wins' as suggested by the draft is not enough IMO. A good architecture
> should probably keep track of what it served as answer and when the answer
> is invalid or a new, better one exists, provide a GARP.
> >
> >As well, when PE2 sends a newer MAC it may not be a good strategy to
> serve a GARP if PE1's MAC has already been offered. That could lead IMO to
> e.g. gateway chasing problems.
> >
> >--- tony
> >
> >
> >There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things,
> and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less
> crowded.
> >~~~ Mark Twain
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:01 AM
> >> To: Antoni Przygienda; Erik Nordmark; Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)
> >> Cc: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [bess] ARP ND draft
> >>
> >> For this case you should sent a GARP with the new MAC/IP
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25/03/15 18:56, "Antoni Przygienda" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > b)It is worth explaining what is suggested behavior if eVPN
> >> >> > advertises the same IP with multiple MACs and what happens when
> >> >> > e.g. the served MAC vanishes
> >> >> >
> >> >> Doesn't the EVPN RFC already stating that the routes would be
> >> >> withdrawn in that case?
> >> >
> >> >The scenario I had in mind was when eVPN PE receives
> >> >
> >> >From PE2  IP1/M1  and  later
> >> >From PE3  IP1/M2
> >> >
> >> >while having answered with IP1/M1 per proxy alrady. Additionally, in
> >> >such situation ends up seeing
> >> >
> >> >From PE2   IP1/<no MAC>
> >> >
> >> >So the answer it gave is not valid anymore all of a sudden.
> >> >
> >> >--- tony
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to