Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below 
marked with "AS>".

´╗┐On 1/9/19, 8:03 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" <> wrote:

    Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: No Objection
    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)
    Please refer to
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    * Section 3.3 MAC Mobility
    The handling of MAC mobility between the EVPN and VPLS PEs seems a bit, for 
    lack of a better term, "not seamless" to me. While only using EVPN a MAC 
    has moved will get propagated out without *initiating* any sort of BUM 
    itself as described Section 15 of RFC7432. If I understand this document
    correctly, if a MAC moves onto a segment with a VPLS PE, traffic towards it
    will be blackholed until it initiates BUM traffic which is not the case when
    the MAC moves between EVPN PEs. Did I get this right? If so, I think this
    limitation needs to be highlighted a bit more prominently.
  AS>  Section 3.3 describes two MAC move scenarios: move from EVPN PE to VPLS 
PE (1st para) and move from VPLS PE to EVPN PE (2nd para). In the first 
scenario, it says that if the moved MAC address doesn't initiate any BUM 
traffic (it only initiates known unicast traffic), then there can be 
black-holing for both EVPN and VPLS PEs. However, for the 2nd scenario, the 
black-holing can happen only for VPLS PEs. To clarify this point further, I 
added a sentence to each of the paragraph. 
1st para: Such black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC 
from both EVPN and VPLS PEs.
2nd para: Such black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC for 
only VPLS PEs but not for EVPN PEs.


BESS mailing list

Reply via email to