Hi authors, EVPN experts, Any feedback?
Regards, Muthu On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:19 AM Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal < muthu.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
