Re: MAC route with IP

["Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[e-mail]>]

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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:14 AM
To: Cisco Employee <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: John E Drake <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Jakob Heitz <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>>
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:44 AM
To: Cisco Employee <[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]');>>
Cc: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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is reordering by route reflector, then as I said, I don't see an issue here :-) In your example, the receiver sees the withdrawn of the IP/MAC route before receiving the MAC-only route.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: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:13 AM
To: Cisco Employee <[e-mail]>om>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: MAC route with IP



A route reflector can and frequently does reorder routes from the same speaker.

For example, a version walk of a tree does not walk in version order, it walks in key order.