IETF Logo Mail Archive

答复: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement

Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DA111E810E for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:25:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.87
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fepFls9HNgiJ for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F7711E823A for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AXR64060; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:25:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:25:24 +0000
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:25:22 +0000
Received: from NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.193]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 04:25:10 +0800
From: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>, Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>, "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: 答复: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement
Thread-Topic: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement
Thread-Index: Ac7cvqYcD4BB2/82Q4+fCPK55cREGP//WkCAgAComOA=
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:25:09 +0000
Message-ID: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08227AC5@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D452EBE6D@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com>, <CEA28635.912BD%wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEA28635.912BD%wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.129.94]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08227AC5NKGEML512MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:25:34 -0000

Wim,



Since you mentioned that E-VPN distributes host routes, I wonder whether those host routes would be used for IP forwarding. If so, should this extension specification belong to the L3VPN scope?



Xiaohu

________________________________
发件人: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
发送时间: 2013年11月9日 4:17
收件人: Lucy yong; l2vpn@ietf.org
主题: Re: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement

Lucy, did you read the draft and is explained in section 6.
Show an example on how you do the scenario’s with RT2 and you will see why this is less efficient/scalable + does not support all scenario’s in the draft like ESI NH.

E-VPN distributes host routes using RT-2: (IP) + MAC and these can be an interface e.g. And prefixes can exists behind them.

From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com<mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com>>
Date: Friday 8 November 2013 22:10
To: "l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>" <l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>>
Subject: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement

Hi Authors,

I am not convinced if RT 5 is necessary for the use cases you specified in the draft (or presentation). IMO: RT2 is sufficient to support all the cases.
There is a draft-yong-nvo3-nve, which covers all the L2 overlay cases, which can be implemented by EVPN with RT2.

One question, why EVPN service allow to VAP being an IP interface?

Thanks,
Lucy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email