On 12/17/12 10:57 AM, "Kireeti Kompella" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 17, 2012, at 10:18 , "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Intra-subnet traffic can be also handled by a layer 3 overlay. > >Let me expand. > >I see the need for E-VPN for non-IP traffic. This is real, and is not >met by IP VPNs (news flash!) > >For IP traffic, whether intra and inter-subnet, IP VPNs suffice. > >The solution is simple: route if IP, bridge if not. Yes, one could do >IRB, but why? IRB brings in complications, especially for multicast. >I'm sure someone suggested this already, so put me down as supporting >this view. IRB has been around and deployed for ages. What multicast complications are you referring to? > >A NVE that supports both E-VPN and IP VPN for a given tenant simply sends >IP traffic to the IP VPN and sends the rest to E-VPN. How this happens >is implementation specific. Note that this assumes that the NVE >intercepts ARPs and responds to them with the same MAC. Does anyone see >a problem with this? I don't think we should draw artificial lines around different solutions. If a single IRB solution can do the job, then why do we need to mandate two different solutions. -Ali > >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. > >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. > >This may appear drastic, but I think operationally, this is will simplify >things. As always, I am open to alternate suggestions, provided they are >presented without religion or politics. I'm especially keen to hear from >those deploying. > >Kireeti. > >_______________________________________________ >nvo3 mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
