Hi Jeffrey,
Maybe I was confused by the last mail.
Let's discuss it on the basis of the text of the [EVPN Virtual Hub] draft.
In section 7.1, it says that:
In case of IR with MPLS
unicast tunnels, VH1 must advertise different labels to different
PEs, so that it can identify the sending PE based on the label in the
traffic from a V-spoke.
I don't understand that sentence in the following questions:
1) How does VH1 advertise many labels to a single RR with the same NLRI?
2) How does the RR recognise that each (instead of only the recent one) of
these labels should be reflected?
3) Will the RR reflect all these labels to all V-Spokes?
4) Will each of the V-Spokes receive only the exact one (which is allocated for
that V-spoke by the VH1) of these labels from the same RR?
Thanks,
Bob
原始邮件
发件人：Jeffrey(Zhaohui)Zhang <[email protected]>
收件人：王玉保10045807;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
抄送人：张征00007940;陈然00080434;
日 期 ：2020年08月21日 23:33
主 题 ：RE: Re:Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC
8317vs.draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04
Hi Bob,
*If* the AR REPLICATOR behaviors are removed from that draft,I think the
hub/spoke scenario can't be well supported because that the
RRs are widely used.
What do you mean by *if* in the above statement? It is the designed behavior
with hub and spoke scenario – with that do you still think there is a problem?
RR is only used for route distribution and should not make any difference.
Thanks.
Jeffrey
Juniper Business Use Only
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 9:52 PM
To: [email protected]; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re:Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC 8317
vs.draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Jeffrey and Sasha,
The flows of E-tree services typically are P2MP conections,
But the flows of hub/spoke services typically are MP2MP connections,
the spoke PEs can connect to each other under the assistance of the hub PE.
The hub/spoke services is actually a special pattern of VPLS, whose MP2MP
nature will be persisted.
So they are very different as what Jeffrey has pointed out.
But the hub/spoke secenario is very similar to the AR REPLICATOR/LEAF, IMHO.
And draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-hub already applied a certain extent of AR
REPLICATOR behaviors to the hub PEs.
The only issues remained in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-hub is that when RRs
exists between hub-PE and spoke-PEs.
If the AR REPLICATOR behaviors are removed from that draft,
I think the hub/spoke scenario can't be well supported because that the RRs are
widely used.
and the AR REPLICATOR behaviors will still be required even if there are no RRs.
And I think the approaches discribed in draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04
can solve the problems caused
by RR existence.
Best Regards,
Bob
原始邮件
发件人：Jeffrey(Zhaohui)Zhang <[email protected]>
收件人：Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;
抄送人：Michael Gorokhovsky <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;
日期：2020年08月20日
22:46
主题：RE: Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC 8317
vs.draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04
Hub and spoke EVPN and E-tree are different.
However, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-hub should address the following two at
least:
* MPLS EVPN can't support hub/spoke usecase, where the spoke PEs can
only connect to each other through the hub PE. Especially when at
least two of the spoke PEs are connected to a common route
reflector.
* MPLS EVPN can't work as an AR-REPLICATOR. Because the AR-
REPLICATOR will apply replication for the ingress AR-LEAF too.
But a packet shoud not be sent back to the AR-LEAF where it is
received from.
Jeffrey
Juniper Business Use Only
From: BESS <[email protected]>On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 9:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Michael Gorokhovsky <[email protected]>;[email protected]
Subject: [bess] Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC 8317 vs.
draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Dear authors of draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04,
Section 2 “Problem Statement” of draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04 states
that “MPLS EVPN can't support hub/spoke use
case, where the spoke PEs can only connect to each other through the hub PE.
Especially when at least two of the spoke PEs are connected to a common route
reflector”.
I have to admit that I do not understand why support of the generic E-Tree
functionality in EVPN defined inRFC
8317 is not sufficient for handling this use case.
In particular I do not see why connection of Spoke PEs to a common RR affects
the EVPN behavior (or L3vPN Hub-and-Spoke VPN behavior as defined inSection
4.3.5 of RFC 4364) in any way.
Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of
Ribbon Communications Inc. that is confidential
and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,
disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express
permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately
and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
