Hi Jorge,
Thank you for the clarification. Should this be part of the standards?
1. In GW-Based Proxy-ARP-ND the GW makes an exception for IP/MACs that have
moved across.
2. Th PE receiving it should purely use it for mobility procedures. I.e.
should not use the RT-2 to program L3 host-routes or use it for Proxy ARP?
* Or, maybe this can be left to implementation?
Regards,
Vinayak
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 3:53 AM
To: Joshi, Vinayak <[email protected]>; 'BESS' <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution with EVPN UMR & Inter-DC Mobility
Hi Vinayak,
I still believe the mobility procedure using the UMR can be applied in the
GW-based proxy-ARP/ND solution. In this model, the gateway would advertise the
UMR along with only those MAC/IP Advertisement routes that correspond to MACs
moving across domains. The leaf routers can then leverage these MAC/IP routes
to execute the required mobility procedures.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Joshi, Vinayak
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Sunday, September 14, 2025 at 8:07 PM
To: 'BESS' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [bess] Re: GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution with EVPN UMR & Inter-DC
Mobility
You don't often get email from
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
Learn why this is
important<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification__;!!NpxR!mHSduymPeiTHs9aQJN0ZxUKu30GIrneeUZaGhbj3ymxppBKh6yBAmQnbXYb1H4lifkVTkJuoNdg3atzB5isZ8hw2e2-_KLFJ$>
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Hi,
Any thoughts on this? In case of GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution inform the PEs
about mobility across DCs when the GW is not expected to sent out RT-2?
Regards,
Vinayak
From: Joshi, Vinayak
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 6:11 PM
To: 'BESS' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution with EVPN UMR & Inter-DC Mobility
Hi all,
Is it correct to say that GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution
(https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-umr-mobility-03.html#name-gw-based-proxy-arp-nd-solut<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-umr-mobility-03.html*name-gw-based-proxy-arp-nd-solut__;Iw!!NpxR!mHSduymPeiTHs9aQJN0ZxUKu30GIrneeUZaGhbj3ymxppBKh6yBAmQnbXYb1H4lifkVTkJuoNdg3atzB5isZ8hw2e4IlB-D8$>)
should not be deployed when inter-DC mobility of end hosts is possible?
This is because even if the GW maintains mobility sequence number per network
(local/interconnects) it does not advertise MAC/IP routes into the local DC (DC
1 in the draft) in this solution.
Hence, it doesn’t help PEs in DC1 to recognize MAC move to DC2.
Regards,
Vinayak
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
