Xuxiaohu, Comment inline
Yours irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Xuxiaohu > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 6:27 PM > To: Ivan Pepelnjak; 'Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)' > Cc: [email protected]; 'Somesh Gupta' > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Support for multi-homed NVEs > > If the DCVPN solution has a control plane for VPN membership auto- > discovery, the concern of whether the destination endpoint (i.e., > egress PE or ETR) is reachable can be addressed easily. Of course, if > you need fast convergence, you can use the mechanism such as next-hop > tracking, just as what Yakov has mentioned before. In addition, in the > case where the egress PE is still reachable but its connectivity to the > multi-homed CE is lost, if there is a control plane for MAC withdrawal > or IP route withdrawal, there would not be any black-holing issue. JD: Block MAC withdrawal in E-VPN occurs in exactly this case. The egress PE uses the withdrawal of a single route to indicate that all MAC addresses associated with the multi-homed CE are no longer reachable via it. This route is the Per ESI Ethernet AD route which represents the connectivity between the egress PE and the multi-homed CE and it is associated with all VPNs of which the multi-homed CE is a member. > Anyway, any DCVPN solution which lacks such a control plane seems not a > good choice, especially in the multi-homing scenario. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
