Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C838C1A0081 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:21:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UXKPxq6BWNPp for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:21:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C62B01A007C for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:21:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPE76654; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:21:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:21:34 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.193]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:21:30 +0800 From: Haoweiguo To: "bess@ietf.org" , "sajassi@cisco.com" Thread-Topic: A comment and question for the draft "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-00" Thread-Index: AdAIkPxbbike4AnoRoyPect4oT/tcA== Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:21:29 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.135.23.94] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DD5FC8DE455C3348B94340C0AB5517334F81F431nkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/3NENhF67QlRNmw7jDGzxiin8D2M Subject: [bess] A comment and question for the draft "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-00" X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:21:39 -0000 --_000_DD5FC8DE455C3348B94340C0AB5517334F81F431nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ali and other Co-authors, In the EVPN IRB draft, Route Type-2 is used to advertise TS's MAC and IP. T= wo BGP Extended Communities are carried with each RT-2 route. The first com= munity carries tunnel type, the second community carries NVE MAC. In normal= case, all RT-2 routes from a remote NVE share same NVE MAC, so in this cas= e the Route information encoding isn't compact. So a new compact encoding method is introduced as follows: 1. Add tunnel type field in Route Type-2. 2. Introduce a new Route Type to exclusively advertise tunnel type,NVE MAC = and L3 VN ID. 3. Ingress NVEs correlate the new Type Route and RT-2 routes advertised fro= m egress NVE to get the NVO3 encapsulation information for inter-subnet IP = traffic forwarding. Maybe there are other more compact methods. I would like to hear your co-au= thors opinion on this point. Thanks weiguo --_000_DD5FC8DE455C3348B94340C0AB5517334F81F431nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Ali and other Co-authors,

 

In the EVPN IRB draft, Route Type-2 is= used to advertise TS's MAC and IP. Two BGP Extended Communities are carrie= d with each RT-2 route. The first community carries tunnel type, the second= community carries NVE MAC. In normal case, all RT-2 routes from a remote NVE share same NVE MAC, so in this cas= e the Route information encoding isn't compact.
So a new compact encoding method is introduced as follows:=

1. Add tunnel type field in Route Type= -2.
2. Introduce a new Route Type to exclusively advertise tunnel type,NVE MAC = and L3 VN ID.
3. Ingress NVEs correlate the new Type Route and RT-2 routes advertised fro= m egress NVE to get the NVO3 encapsulation information for inter-subne= t IP traffic forwarding.

 

Maybe there are other more compact met= hods. I would like to hear your co-authors opinion on this point.


Thanks


weiguo

--_000_DD5FC8DE455C3348B94340C0AB5517334F81F431nkgeml501mbschi_--