draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding says the following in section 3.2.2:
<snip> If the receiving PE receives this route with both the MAC-VRF and IP- VRF route targets but the MAC/IP Advertisement route does not include MPLS label2 field and if the receiving PE supports asymmetric IRB mode, then the receiving PE installs the MAC address in the corresponding MAC-VRF and <IP, MAC> association in the ARP table for that tenant (identified by the corresponding IP-VRF route target). </snip> Further below it says: <snip> If the receiving PE receives this route with both the MAC-VRF and IP- VRF route targets but the MAC/IP Advertisement route does not include MPLS label2 field and if the receiving PE does not support either asymmetric or symmetric IRB modes, then if it has the corresponding MAC-VRF, it only imports the MAC address </snip> How should "does not support either asymmetric or symmetric IRB" be interpreted? Should it be interpreted as "supports neither asymmetric nor symmetric"? Or should it be interpreted as "does not support one of them"? If it is the former, then the case where the receiving PE supports only symmetric (but not asymmetric) IRB isn't described. It it is the later then it includes the case where the receiving PE supports only asymmetric (but not symmetric) IRB and what is described in that paragraph conflicts with the first paragraph mentioned above. Regards, Muthu
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
