Jorge, Again, lots of thanks for your email! It really helps to resolve some serious concerns!
Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 9:19 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>; Wim Henderickx (Nokia) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com>; w...@juniper.net; John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: A question about Section 4.4.1 of RFC 9136 Hi Sasha, About your questions: 1. Yes, DGW1/DGW2 could use the RD of the IP-VRF if they advertise a prefix for H1. Note that the DGW could also genera a default route, etc. 2. DGW1 and DGW2 decide if they advertise host routes for those hosts in IP Prefix routes, or local subnets, etc. Same as you would do with the VPN-IP families in an IP-VRF.. not sure why you would do anything different My two cents. Thanks. Jorge From: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com<mailto:alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>> Date: Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:43 AM To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>, Wim Henderickx (Nokia) <wim.henderi...@nokia.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@nokia.com>>, w...@juniper.net<mailto:w...@juniper.net> <w...@juniper.net<mailto:w...@juniper.net>>, John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jdrake=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>>, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: A question about Section 4.4.1 of RFC 9136 CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi all, I have a couple of questions about usage of EVPN Type 5 routes (a.k.a. RT-5) in the Interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF model described in Section 4.4.1 of RFC 9136<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9136#section-4.4.1>. I am copying the diagram shown in Figure 8 in this section for convenience. NVE1(M1) +------------+ IP1+----| (BD-1) | DGW1(M3) | \ | +---------+ +--------+ | (IP-VRF)|----| |-|(IP-VRF)|----+ | / | | | +--------+ | +---| (BD-2) | | | _+_ | +------------+ | | ( ) SN1| | VXLAN/ | ( WAN )--H1 | NVE2(M2) | GENEVE/| (___) | +------------+ | MPLS | + +---| (BD-2) | | | DGW2(M4) | | \ | | | +--------+ | | (IP-VRF)|----| |-|(IP-VRF)|----+ | / | +---------+ +--------+ SN2+----| (BD-3) | +------------+ As you can see, this model does not show any Broadcast Domains (BD) or IRB interfaces in IP-VRFs residing in DGW1/DGW2. The text that follows the diagram explains how prefixes representing SN1 and SN2 are advertised by NVE1 and NVE2 as RT-5 and accepted by IP-VRFs in DGW1 and DGW2. Therefore, traffic generated by H1 can reach the destinations in subnets SN1 and SN2. 1. Do I understand correctly that IP-VRFs in DGW1/DGW2 advertise RT-5 to some destination that cover H1? If yes are the RDs in the NLRI of these routes are the RDs of the advertising IP-VRFs? 2. Suppose that some hosts (say, H11 and H22) are locally connected to the IP-VRF in DGW1 and DGW2 respectively - without any BDs and IRB interfaces in these devices as shown below. Will DGW1 and DGW2 advertise RT-5 that cover these destinations? H11 NVE1(M1) + +------------+ | IP1+----| (BD-1) | DGW1(M3)| | \ | +---------+ +--------+ | (IP-VRF)|----| |-|(IP-VRF)|----+ | / | | | +--------+ | +---| (BD-2) | | | _+_ | +------------+ | | ( ) SN1| | VXLAN/ | ( WAN )--H1 | NVE2(M2) | GENEVE/| (___) | +------------+ | MPLS | + +---| (BD-2) | | | DGW2(M4) | | \ | | | +--------+ | | (IP-VRF)|----| |-|(IP-VRF)|----+ | / | +---------+ +--------+ SN2+----| (BD-3) | | +------------+ | + H22 Your timely feedback will be highly appreciated. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha Disclaimer This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates 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 BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
