On 12/17/12 1:57 PM, "Kireeti Kompella" <[email protected]> wrote:
>For IP traffic, whether intra and inter-subnet, IP VPNs suffice. Yep. > >The solution is simple: route if IP, bridge if not. Yes, one could do >IRB, but why? IRB brings in complications, especially for multicast. Exactly, thank you for speaking out. >I'm sure someone suggested this already, so put me down as supporting >this view. I believe Pedro gave detailed explanations many times a few months ago. Of course, Maria and I had been expressing such opinions all along on-line and off-line, and brushed off good amount of bullets. :-). > >If there is a case for _only_ intra-subnet traffic, one may create an >E-VPN to handle both IP and non-IP; but I suspect this is a rare case. A solution just for some very narrow cases is not that too useful. >From that point of view, I would like to see E-VPNs in the data center >*always* coupled with IP VPNs, and only dealing with non-IP traffic. Do you mean the following? IP VPN alone is sufficient if all traffic is L3 or handling the majority traffic which is IP; but E-VPN is not in the same case, E-VPN needs to leverage IP VPN for inter-subnet routing (unless you never get out of a subnet), therefore it needs to "*always* coupled with IP VPNs"? If this is correct understanding, and we are talking about VPN cases only (there are also other non-VPN options too), I agree with you. The "*always* coupled" wording makes me a little nervous, better to ask you to elaborate. What I don't want to see is that the implementation ties IP VPN and E-VPN together. If the traffic is IP (might well be 90+% cases), there should not be any E-VPN involvement. If both L2 and L3 are needed, there should be clear demarcation, not mixed together, not sharing the same VRF, not make one VPN with some l2 sites and some l3 sites. Let's keep it clean and simple. > >This may appear drastic, but I think operationally, this is will simplify >things. Yes, operation simplicity is the key to success. IP VPN is a living proof. Others are not at par. I think Thomas Narten and Maria both expressed the point to avoid complication, agree with them too. I have a larger question, not to Kireeti or any particular person. How come we only talk about MPLS VPNs here now? What happened to other technologies? Were not VXLAN and NVGRE the original motivation for nvo3? I am a MPLS VPN person, but I also don't believe in one size fits all. IP VPN or E-VPN are right for some operators, cannot say for everyone. Where are the folks talking non MPLS topics? Luyuan _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
