Hi Joel, Thanks for your review and comments, please see inline for my reply marked with AS>:
On 7/6/20, 8:06 PM, "Joel Jaeggli via Datatracker" <[email protected]> wrote: Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli Review result: Ready greetings, I have reviewed draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding on behalf of the ops directorate. as a datacenter operator something of a conflict appears for me in this work in that I struggle with the state explosion that IRBs each host / subnet represent on the PE switches. As the document says: In other words, each PE participating in asymmetric IRB MUST maintain ARP entries for remote hosts (hosts connected to other PEs) as well as maintain MAC-VRFs/BTs and IRB interfaces for ALL subnets in an IP VRF including subnets that may not be locally attached. We designed ourselves into a corner where we need this document. it would be helpful if section 4 would be more explicit for non-implementors on when symetric or asymetric modules would be chosen, as it stands the variation basically reads like the enumeration of the features of various implementations. AS> There are tradeoffs between symmetric and asymmetric IRB among which the scale in terms of # of bridge tables, # of ARP entries, and # of MAC addresses that a PE need to keep. I will add a note to section 4 that for asymmetric IRB application, careful consideration needs to be given for these scale aspects. Regards, Ali I think this document is ready to proceed and it clearly addresses needs in these implementations. joel _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
