Hi Robert, In inter-as option-B between NVO3 and MPLS/IP VPN network case, the DC Gateway router(ASBR in NVO3 network) should perform translation between VN-IDs and IP VPN labels while forwarding packets between the DC and WAN interfaces without performing an IP lookup. This draft describes how to set up VN-ID and MPLS Label mapping relationship on NVO3 network gateway(ASBR). This is the new point of this draft, and has some difference from traditional RFC4364 based inter-as option-B solution.
Thanks weiguo ________________________________ 发件人: Haoweiguo 发送时间: 2014年7月2日 11:52 收件人: Robert Raszuk 抄送: [email protected] 主题: 答复: Solicit reviews and comments on draft-hao-l3vpn-inter-nvo3-vpn-00 Hi Robert, Currently there is no heterogeneous option-B inter-as solution between NVO3 and MPLS L3VPN network, only option-A inter-as solution is provided in mainstream NVO3 solution. This draft mainly discribes the procedures of NVO3 distributed gateway integrated with inter-as option-B solution, it can provide directions for open source or commercial implementations. Pls see my detail reply inline [weiguo]. Thanks weiguo ________________________________ 发件人: [email protected] [[email protected]] 代表 Robert Raszuk [[email protected]] 发送时间: 2014年7月2日 1:21 收件人: Haoweiguo 抄送: [email protected] 主题: Re: Solicit reviews and comments on draft-hao-l3vpn-inter-nvo3-vpn-00 Hi Weiguo, I have read your document with interest expecting to see something new .. well I have not seen anything which other L3VPN documents would not have already covered. Section 4 lists 16 million number as issue of option A. Can you explain where in option A architecture such number is stated ? As to the number of sessions issue between ASBRs I would recommend lecture of draft-mapathak-interas-ab-00.txt [weiguo]:Because theoretically 16M VN are supported in a NVO3 network, if centralized layer 3 gateway and inter-as option-A solution is used, then 16M sub-interfaces should be supported on each ASBR. VPN traffic separation still relies on VLAN. In draft-mapathak-interas-ab-00,EBGP session can be greatly reduced, but I don't know how can you separate different VPN's traffic? Does it still relies on VLAN or sub-interface? Bottom line I am not finding anything new in this document which would not be already well known or even shipping in open source or commercial implementations. [weiguo]: The difference from traditional RFC 4364 inter-as option-B are as follows: Internal DC to external DC direction routing distribution procedures: ASBR1 allocates MPLS VPN Label per tenant (VN ID) per NVE, the incoming forwarding table on ASBR1 is as following: +--------------------+------------------+ | MPLS VPN Label | NVE + VN ID | +--------------------+------------------+ | 1000 | NVE1 + 10 | +--------------------+------------------+ | 2000 | NVE1 + 20 | +--------------------+------------------+ External DC to internal DC direction routing distribution procedures: ASBR1 allocates VN ID for each VPN Label receiving from ASBR2, The outgoing forwarding table on ASBR1 is as follows: +------------------+--------------------+ | VN ID | Out VPN Label | +------------------+--------------------+ | 10000 | 3000 | +------------------+--------------------+ | 10001 | 4000 | +------------------+--------------------+ In this scenario, VN ID has local significance and is similar to MPLS Label, it's different from VN usage in NVO3 network, in NVO3 network VN has network wide globally significance. Also, NVO3 support NVE-NVA architecture, in this architecture, NVA should support inter-as option-B function, the forwarding table on ASBR and NVEs are downloaded through NVA. Best regards, R. On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Haoweiguo <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, We submit a new draft of "Inter-AS Option B between NVO3 and BGP/MPLS IP VPN network", please review it and warmly appreciate your comments and suggestions. Thanks weiguo
