Hi Arun, It's for EVPN only, but using the same concept that has been developed for L3.
If we have both L2 and L3, it would be "ships in the night", and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lin-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-02 is one way to optimize things. That draft talked about using MVPN when a bridge domain is not connected everywhere. Jeffrey > -----Original Message----- > From: Arun Prakash (arprakas) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 5:17 PM > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>; Swadesh Agrawal > (swaagraw) <[email protected]>; Eric Rosen <[email protected]>; Martin > Vigoureux <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Nikhil Shetty > (nikshett) <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-zzhang-bess-evpn-bum- > procedure-updates-03 > > Hi Jeffrey, > > Thank you for the explanation. Am not clear if this draft is only for L2 > or can it be used for L3 as well? > What if we have both L2 and L3 multicast ? > > Thanks > Arun > > On 8/28/16, 7:08 PM, "BESS on behalf of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi Swadesh, > > > >"Enable MVPN safi and enhance it for EVPN" is not a trivial thing that > >can be cleanly done on top of MVPN. You'd end up complicating MVPN > >procedures a lot for EVPN specific things. Instead, we can apply the same > >principles to EVPN safi and procedures, and that's what this draft is > >about. > > > >BTW, we don't yet see the need of the equivalent of MVPN type-5 routes > >for EVPN. Draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy already proposed SMET > >route which is very similar to MVPN type-6/7 (to be exact, a combination > >of type-4/6/7). That is explained in > >draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements. > > > >Jeffrey > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw) [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 3:06 AM > >> To: Eric Rosen <[email protected]>; Martin Vigoureux > >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-zzhang-bess-evpn-bum- > >> procedure-updates-03 > >> > >> Why we need to copy MVPN procedures in EVPN. Why not enable MVPN safi > >>and > >> enhance it for any EVPN specific requiremnt. Also going in this > >>direction > >> may require to add 5,6 and 7 routes as well in future. > >> > >> Regards > >> Swadesh > >> > >> On 8/25/16, 2:22 PM, "Eric C Rosen" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >Support. > >> > > >> >MVPN has a number of multicast features that are valuable, but haven't > >> >yet been incorporated into EVPN. This draft takes a comprehensive > look > >> >at the MVPN procedures that provide those features, and shows how to > >> >adapt them to EVPN. This seems quite valuable to me, and thus I > think > >> >the WG should adopt this draft. > >> > > >> >_______________________________________________ > >> >BESS mailing list > >> >[email protected] > >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > > >_______________________________________________ > >BESS mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
