Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question

2020-04-23 Thread Gyan Mishra
Hi Jeff Yes - Cisco has a draft for multi site for use cases capability of inter pod or inter site segmented path between desperate POD fabrics intra DC or as DCI option inter DC without MPLS. The segmentation localizes BUM traffic and has border gateway DF election for BUM traffic that is

Re: [bess] IGMP / MLD Proxy Draft update (NLRI change)

2020-04-23 Thread Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Thank you Mankamana. From Nokia’s perspective I confirm your reference below. We implemented it without a Seq number based on what we thought was that agreement among authors pre-IETF106. Just wanted to mention that there were never any procedures specified for the sequence number in the

[bess] IGMP / MLD Proxy Draft update (NLRI change)

2020-04-23 Thread Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
All, Post WGLC before IETF Singapore it came to our notice that there were implementation discrepancies of this draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-04#section-9.3). Though draft had NLRI definition as

Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question

2020-04-23 Thread Gyan Mishra
Slight clarification with the arp traffic. What I meant was broadcast traffic translated into BUM traffic with the EVPN architecture is there any way to reduce the amount of BUM traffic with a data center design requirement with vlan anywhere sprawl with 1000s of type 2 Mac mobility routes being

Re: [bess] IGMP / MLD Proxy Draft update (NLRI change)

2020-04-23 Thread Majumdar, Kausik
Thanks Mankamana for bringing this in. I agree with Jorge here, that draft doesn’t describe any procedures specifying leave group sequence number. We should remove this field from the draft to avoid any confusion. Our implementation wise it would be okay as we haven’t implemented yet. Just on

Re: [bess] IGMP / MLD Proxy Draft update (NLRI change)

2020-04-23 Thread Keyur Patel
I agree with Jorge and Mankamana. We don’t need leave group sequence number. I would keep it out for now. Regards, Keyur From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" Date: Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 1:18 AM To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" , "bess@ietf.org" Cc:

Re: [bess] IGMP / MLD Proxy Draft update (NLRI change)

2020-04-23 Thread Anoop Ghanwani
I'm OK with the changes mentioned below (remove the field and require RR to accept both lengths). I think RR accepting both lengths should be a SHOULD rather than a MUST (it would be more accommodative of implementations), but I could probably live with the MUST. Anoop On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at

Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question

2020-04-23 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Gyan, "Multi site” is not really an IETF terminology, this is a solution implement by NX-OS, there’s a draft though. Its main functionality is to localize VxLAN tunnels and provide segmented path vs end2end full mesh of VxLAN tunnels (participating in the same EVI). We are talking HER here.