Hi Maria, On Sep 24, 2012, at 11:01 , "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don, > >> The complexity comes from the date center environment, but >> is seems better to provide both L2 and L3 capabilities and let >> deployments choose the mix. > > I am afraid that once you mix those capabilities in one implementation there > is no choice. As a result, inter-subnet IP forwarding which is trivial in > L3VPN (as is intra-subnet forwarding, btw) becomes all of a sudden complex > under such construct. I'll agree (sort of). Let me dissect this a bit: a) providing L2 and L3 with a common control plane is a Good Thing. b) providing a choice of L2 and/or L3 virtual networks on a common platform is a Good Thing. c) mixing L2 and L3 for a tenant (either as VNs or between DC and WAN) is fraught with complications (basically, IRB in a virtualized setting). There is implementation and deployment proof that (a) and (b) are perfectly doable. There is proof by scars that (c ) is painful. However, I suspect that pragmatics realities will dictate that (c ) is necessary. Kireeti. > Maria > >> The nice property of BGP based IPVPN and EVPN is the ability to >> partition the information such that the both L2 and L3 VPNs can scale >> independently, each in context (for example VLANs, IP VPNs). In that >> sense IP VPNs and EVPNs are well suited as one solution for extending >> the L2 and L3 connectivity for large and physically disperse data >> centers. >> >> Don _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
