IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.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 0BF6F21E8139 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:18:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 4cd3qXiUASu3 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A78621E8195 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id rA8KHsgP027682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 14:17:56 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id rA8KHmuI002016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:17:54 +0100
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.193]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:17:53 +0100
From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>, "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement
Thread-Topic: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement
Thread-Index: Ac7cvqYcD4BB2/82Q4+fCPK55cREGP//WkCA
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:17:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CEA28635.912BD%wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D452EBE6D@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CEA28635912BDwimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
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 20:18:07 -0000

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