Hi, > between the DC and WAN interfaces without performing an IP lookup.
What's wrong with IP lookup per VPN on ASBR ? Are you sure you want to allocate as many VN_IDs as you have VPN prefixes in each VPN and inject all of those into end systems in the DC ? Moreover do you think there are advantages to continue to churn your Vn_IDs intra-dc advertisements at the same rate as your WAN L3VPN IP reachability changes say between any of the two PEs for multihomed VPN sites ? I would consider that topology hiding is an advantage not a drawback. Note that DC facing ASBR may demux to a VRF on VN_ID basis per VPN (not per VPN prefix), perform again per VPN scoped IP lookup then follow with encapsulating in correct VPN label towards WAN. Pretty simple setup :) Thx, R. On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Haoweiguo <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 > > >
