Re: [bess] A comment and question for the draft "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-00"

["Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[e-mail]>]

The reason we did this is providing the most flexibility because depending on the use case you need one and not the other. Hence we optimised for flexibility.

From: Haoweiguo <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday 25 November 2014 10:21
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, sajassi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [bess] A comment and question for the draft "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-00"


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 carried 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 case 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 from 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-authors opinion on this point.

Thanks

weiguo