draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding describes two ways of provisioning the default gateway MAC and IP addresses on the IRB interface associated with the corresponding subnet:
<snip> 1. All the PEs for a given tenant subnet use the same anycast default gateway IP and MAC addresses . On each PE, this default gateway IP and MAC addresses correspond to the IRB interface connecting the BT associated with the tenant's VLAN to the corresponding tenant's IP- VRF. 2. Each PE for a given tenant subnet uses the same anycast default gateway IP address but its own MAC address. These MAC addresses are aliased to the same anycast default gateway IP address through the use of the Default Gateway extended community as specified in [RFC7432], which is carried in the EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement routes. </snip> Further below it says: <snip> Irrespective of using only the anycast address or both anycast and non-anycast addresses on the same IRB, when a TS sends an ARP request or ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS) to the PE that is attached to, the request is sent for the anycast IP address of the IRB interface associated with the TS's subnet and the reply will use anycast MAC address (in both Source MAC in the Ethernet header and Sender hardware address in the payload). </snip> In the above, it says the ARP response or NS will use the anycast MAC address. The question is, how is this feasible if the second option of provisioning the default gateway MAC and IP addresses on the IRB interface are chosen, where each PE for a given tenant subnet uses the same anycast default gateway IP address but its own MAC address? Should it instead say: the request is sent for the anycast IP address of the IRB interface associated with the TS's subnet and the reply will use *configured* MAC address? i.e. s/anycast MAC/configured MAC? Regards, Muthu
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
