FYI – per chairs request From: Nitin Singh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 5:14 PM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Hassan Hosseini <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ryan Bickhart <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Manoj Sharma <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, John E Drake <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree Resent-From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Resent-Date: Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 4:50 AM
Hi , This is regarding the section 3.2 BUM Traffic . From my reading of the draft it seems that the assumption here is that BUM traffic will be send with the ESI label even to the PEs which are not connected to the ESI. An alternative solution could be to advertise two IM routes per Ethernet Tag 1) One for the AC in leaf mode 2) Second for the AC in Root mode The advantage of the above solution is that we don’t need the ESI label in label stack for the packet send towards the set of PEs not connected to the ESI . The use of ESI label could be restricted for forwarding the BUM traffic between MH PEs connected to ESI operating in all-active mode, as per the SH procedures described in the RFC 7432 . Thanks Nitin
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
