On 30 January 2018 at 18:29, Aaron Gould <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks.... > > "With regards to the load-sharing in L2 > -problem is you'll never get IP like load-sharing in L2 since Ethernet is > fundamentally flawed in this regard as it just can't associate same mac > address with two ports." > > I thought with bgp-mac-routes in evpn, you could engineer traffic with same > knobs used in bgp-ip-routes. ? > > I thought with evpn, you could have active-active multi-homed forwarding > across 2 ports, 2 CE's. ? > > -Aaron
Hi Aaron, That is correct. EVPN does support multi-active forwarding with a single designated forwarding PE for BUM traffic. It's "closer" to a typical L3 VPN in that the customer MAC addresses (instead of IP prefixes) are learnt in the control-plane. If using BGP for example as your control-plane, ECMP now becomes an option because you have multiple MAC routes in BGP, each with a different next-hop and label (if using MPLS based EVPN). This is the same as a dual-homed CPE in a L3 VPN. MACs are stored in a MAC-VRF like an IP VRF and each MAC-VRF has a unique route distinguisher, also like an IP VRF. It's easy to get caught up in new jazzy technologies but I do really like EVPN [1] because L2 VPNs and L3 VPNs start to operate with more similar properties. Cheers, James. [1] We don't have any live EVPN yet, I'm just lab testing it at present to better understand it. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
