Re: MAC route with IP

[Aldrin Isaac <[e-mail]>]

How about:

"Note that a MAC-only route can be advertised along with MAC/IP routes for use
cases where an active MAC must remain reachable when all IP's become
disassociated with that MAC."

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Hi Aldrin,
>
>  I believe the application of MAC/IP route in section 10 is clear.
> However, if you think we can make further clarification, please suggest the
> text. We need to make sure the functionality that we specify is clearly
> described and explained. We don't need to describe/mention the
> functionality that is not used/needed.
>
>  Thanks,
> Ali
>
>   From: Aldrin Isaac <[e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>
> >
> Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:14 AM
> To: Cisco Employee <[e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>
> >
> Cc: John E Drake <[e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>>,
> Jakob Heitz <[e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>>,
> "[e-mail] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>" <
> [e-mail] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>>, Antoni
> Przygienda <[e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>
> >
> Subject: Re: MAC route with IP
>
>  Would it be worthwhile to mention that MAC/IP routes should not be used
> as a proxy for MAC-only route?
>
> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>  Yes, although my email and Jorge's emails crossed each others, we are
> both saying exactly the same thing.
>
>  That's why I think the existing text is sufficient and we don't need to
> add any thing more because both of the scenarios I mentioned below can
> happen and the existing text covers them both.
>
>  Cheers,
> Ali
>
>
>
>   From: John E Drake <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:44 AM
> To: Cisco Employee <[e-mail]>om>, Jakob Heitz <
> [e-mail]>gt;, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: MAC route with IP
>
>   Ali,
>
>
>
> As both Jorge and you have pointed out, there may indeed be cases for
> which there should not be a MAC only route.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* L2vpn [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of * Ali Sajassi
> (sajassi)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:38 AM
> *To:* Jakob Heitz; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* Antoni Przygienda
> *Subject:* Re: MAC route with IP
>
>
>
>
>
> Even if there is reordering by route reflector, then as I said, I don't
> see an issue here :-) In your example, the receiver sees the withdrawn of
> the IP/MAC route before receiving the MAC-only route. In that case, the
> traffic toward that MAC address will get flooding (or dropped if flooding
> is disabled) till it receives the MAC-only route. However, why does the
> sender has to wait till it withdraws the IP/MAC advertisement before
> sending the MAC-only advertisement – e.g., why doesn't the sender send
> MAC-only advertisement as soon as it learns it.
>
>
>
> Again, there are scenarios in which learning is done in data-plane along
> with ARP suppression. In such scenarios, the sender should send MAC-only
> route as soon as it learns it and MAC/IP route when it snoops the ARP.
>  However, there are other scenarios where there is no MAC learning in
> data-plane. In such scenario, when a VM becomes known, the MAC/IP route is
> advertised and if the VM goes away, MAC/IP is withdrawn. In such scenarios,
> we don't want to advertise an extra route (MAC-only route) unnecessarily.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ali
>
>
>
> *From: *Jakob Heitz <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *
>
>