Mankamana, Lots of thanks for your email. Grom my POV the marked is a valid response to my Q2.
Regards, Sasha From: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 9:55 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: A couple of question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling Hi Sasha, Thanks for extra information, but in this case problem statement described in this draft does not seems to be applicable for this case. Mankamana From: BESS <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 5:55 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [bess] A couple of question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling Hi, Regarding my Q2: I have encountered deployments in which an EVPN IRB is configured with multiple IP subnets while the single attachment circuit of the broadcast domain it uses is delimited by a single VLAN. Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 3:51 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: A couple of question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling Importance: High Hi, I have a couple of question about the AC-aware bundling draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling-04> . The background for these questions is given below. Section 6.2 of RFC 7432<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7432#section-6.2> that defines VLAN Bundle Service Interface says that “MAC addresses MUST be unique across all VLANs for that EVI in order for this service to work” . This requirement is not limited to multihomed PEs No mechanisms for enforcement of this requirement (e.g., by detecting and handling of possible violations) are defined Any manipulation of VLAN tags is strictly prohibited with this service interface The draft in question defines a similar requirement and effectively provides a way to enforce it. However: Detection of misconfiguration is explicitly limited to just multihomed PEs (as can be seen from the title of Section 5) The draft does not impose any limitations on VLAN manipulation (this is expected in the case of inter-subnet traffic (with each subnet differentiated by a VLAN) within a single broadcast domain) The draft seems to deal just with the situation in which multiple subnets in the same broadcast domain are differentiated by VLANs. And now my questions: Q1: What is the rationale for restricting detection and handling of violation of the above-mentioned rule to just multi-homed PEs? Q2: Does the draft support the situations in which multiple IP subnets in the same broadcast domain are NOT differentiated by different VLANs? Q3: Is VLAN translation with AC-aware bundling service interface allowed for intra-subnet traffic that undergoes “pure Layer 2 switching” in the single broadcast domain? Your feedback would 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
