Thanks Ali. May be worth modifying the sentence below to say: >>>
8) When a 802.1Q interface is used between a CE and a PE, each of the VLAN ID (VID) on that interface can be mapped onto a bridge table (for upto 4094 such bridge tables). More than one bridge table may be mapped onto a single MAC-VRF (in case of VLAN-aware bundle service). >>> Anoop On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: BESS <[email protected]> on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani < > [email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:39 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: [bess] a question about bundled service in > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08 > > > This is what the draft says about bundled service: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08#section-4 > >>> > > 8) When a 802.1Q interface is used between a CE and a PE, each of the > VLAN ID (VID) on that interface can be mapped onto a bridge table > (for upto 4094 such bridge tables). All these bridge tables may be > mapped onto a single MAC-VRF (in case of VLAN-aware bundle service). > > >>> > > So it sounds like 1:1 is supported (that's the straightforward case where > the inner VLAD ID is stripped from the encap'ed packet) and All:1 is > supported (i.e. the service is blind to the incoming tag and just preserves > it as is, potentially with normalization if translation is required). > > What about the case for n:1 where I want some subset of VLAN IDs coming in > on a port to map to VNID1, and another subset map to VNID2? Is that > explicitly disallowed? If so, why? > > That’s is also supported. Refer to section 6 of RFC 7432 for different > service interfaces that are supported. > > Cheers, > Ali > > Thanks, > Anoop > > > >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
