Dear WG,
Recently, I discovered 2 EVPN implementations with no support for multihoming
functions.
In both cases, vendor says RFC7432 section 8 is completely not implemented. One
implementation blackholes forwarding to MAC routes received from elsewhere in
the EVPN
domain which contain non-zero
Hi Gyan,
Here, we use a mix of NXOS & Arista EOS for leaf and spine, ASR9k DCI doing L2
+ L3 VTEP and stitching to MPLS EVPN / traditional VPNv4/6. We also confess to
pockets of proprietary NXOS vPC, and, pockets of Arista ESI-MH. Incidentally,
the older Broadcom NXOS boxes do have ESI-MH
Hi Wen,
First, thank you for this work, I see the problem you’re trying to solve and
support trying to do that. I have some questions.
Lets say for example, PEs: 1,2,3 have CE1 attached on the same all-active ES.
PE4 is a remote PE participating in the same EVPN. CE1’s MAC/IP is learned in
adan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Eric
Rosen <ero...@juniper.net>, Sandy Breeze <sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>, "Satya
Mohanty (satyamoh)" <satya...@cisco.com>
Cc: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <saja...@cisco.com>, "be
John, Eric, Jorge,
[Sandy] Comments inline
On 24/03/2018, 10:57, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
> wrote:
Eric, as discussed and you point out, one can easily interpret that IMET is not
mandatory in some cases where
org> On Behalf Of Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
US/Mountain View)
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:58 AM
To: Eric Rosen <ero...@juniper.net>; Sandy Breeze <sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>;
bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on
problem descriptio
n View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>,
Sandy Breeze <sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on
problem description
On 3/21/2018 12:36 PM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)