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

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

Have a look at this draft which explains how I works:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-02


From: Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday 8 November 2013 22:59
To: Wim Henderickx <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Lucy yong <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: 答复: 答复: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement


Because this extension is intended for L3 forwarding, rather than L2 forwarding anymore. Furthermore, that L3 forwarding is used for inter-subnet traffic.



Although E-Vpn from the beginning allowed this capability of advertising IP+MAC, the IP address is not used for L3 forwarding.



Xiaohu

________________________________
发件人: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
发送时间: 2013年11月9日 4:36
收件人: Xuxiaohu; Lucy yong; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: Re: 答复: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement

I don’t see why this should be discussed with L3VPN because E-Vpn from the beginning allowed this capability. The mechanism described here allows to optimise the scenario’s. We look at reusing L3VPn AFI/SAFI and given there is no MAC or ESI NH it is not suited for all scenario’s.
Hence the proposal.


From: Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday 8 November 2013 22:25
To: Wim Henderickx <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Lucy yong <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: 答复: comment on draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement


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:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
发送时间: 2013年11月9日 4:17
收件人: Lucy yong; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday 8 November 2013 22:10
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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