++ Chris, to provide input from Arista point of view.
Mankamana
From: BESS on behalf of Keyur Patel
Date: Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 1:16 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" ,
"Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" ,
"bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org"
Hi All,
Regarding the proposal to remove the Leave Group Synchronization field from the
Multicast Leave Synch Route, the current proposal is inadequate. Below I
discuss why, and provide an alternate suggestion. For those who don’t want to
read my wall of text, my key motivation is simple:
-
Thanks Jorge and Jeff for guiding all the way thru the features and functions
we have around, in DCI-overlay and Multi-Site.
Gyan,
Specific to the VNI distribution, BUM handling and the re-origination in
Multi-Site.
With re-origination, the RDs are changed on the GW node. With this in mind,
Hi Gyan,
The dci evpn overlay draft indeed provides that segmentation. EVPN routes are
readvertised at the GWs with change in RD/VNI/Nhop, and this certainly
optimizes the BUM replication. From end leaf nodes. The draft also introduces
the use of an unknown Mac route that the GWs can advertise
Hi Jorge
I read through the draft and it sounds this vxlan segmentation is similar
to multi site segmented multi part LSP used for DCI. How does this
option compare or contrast with the multi site draft below.
With DCI evpn overlay you mentioned, the VNIs on the ASBRs are translated
and not
Also,
Some preliminary interop tests were conducted recently for segmentation
(thought it was VXLAN <-> MPLS <-> VXLAN, not VXLAN <-> VXLAN <-> VXLAN):
http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/MPLS2020/EANTC-MPLSSDNNFV2020-WhitePaper.pdf
Hi Gyan,
If I may, note that:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-10#section-4.6
Also provides vxlan segmentation, and while the description is based on DCI,
you can perfectly use it for inter-pod connectivity.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Gyan Mishra
