Yes, Jim Uttaro, it is related to FXC, please let me know your comments on
the below proposal.

Regards,
Gangadhar

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 6:45 PM UTTARO, JAMES <[email protected]> wrote:

> *I assume this discussion applies to FXC ( Flexible Cross Connect )..*
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *              Jim Uttaro*
>
>
>
> *From:* BESS <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * gangadhara reddy
> chavva
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 10, 2019 7:29 AM
> *To:* Thirumavalavan Periyannan (thiperiy) <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [bess] EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site
>
>
>
> Hi Thiru,
>
>
>
> here is the clarifications for your questions.
>
>
>
> this is basically primary PE reach ability /  availability can be
> determined through BFD/Multihop BFD, in this case FRR switch can happen
> very quickly at the remote PE, control plane convergence later.
>
>
>
> please see in line answers for the below questions:
>
> for faster convergence if we can install the route such that BDF can allow
> the traffic from remote PE towards to multi homed segment, we can forward
> the traffic received from the remote PE.
>
>
>
> Gangadhar >> this explains the route programming at multi homed site, if
> elected PE is BDF, program the label path, so that traffic received from
> remote PE will be send to multi homed CE.
>
>
>
> at the same time we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site this
> leads to duplicate traffic on the remote PE. to achieve this we should not
> program the path from multi home site towards remote PE until this PE
> elected as DF for that VPWS instance.
>
>
>
> Gangadhar >> again this is at BDF, we shouldn't allow the traffic from
> multi homed site CE to remote PE, for this BDF should not program the path
> towards remote PE, so at BDF if there is any traffic from CE will be get
> dropped at BDF.
>
>
>
>
>
> I hope this will clarify your question.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gangadhar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 2:50 AM Thirumavalavan Periyannan (thiperiy) <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Gangadhara,
>
>
>
> How remote PE detect the DF failure? It’s based on EVI/AD Withdraw message
> from DF PE if so then NDF PE also received this route and changed its DF
> status at the same time Remote PE changed its nexthop to NEW DF PE.
>
>
>
> The below info is not clear, could you please help me to understand.
>
>
>
> for faster convergence if we can install the route such that BDF can allow
> the traffic from remote PE towards to multi homed segment, we can forward
> the traffic received from the remote PE.
>
>
>
> at the same time we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site this
> leads to duplicate traffic on the remote PE. to achieve this we should not
> program the path from multi home site towards remote PE until this PE
> elected as DF for that VPWS instance.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thiru
>
>
> On 09-Aug-2019, at 19:02, gangadhara reddy chavva <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> HI All,
>
>
>
> i have one question on EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site.
>
> when PE is selected as BDF, it will communicate the EAD EVI route with B
> bit set to remote PE. so remote PE will install the FRR route with primary
> path towards DF PE and secondary path towards BDF.
>
> when ever primary path get disconnected it will switch the path to
> secondary path quickly at remote PE. because of this data from the remote
> PE will reach to BDF very quickly, but if BDF is not programmed its path
> towards multi homed segment then traffic will be get dropped until control
> plane convergence and it will be elected as DF.
>
>
>
> for faster convergence if we can install the route such that BDF can allow
> the traffic from remote PE towards to multi homed segment, we can forward
> the traffic received from the remote PE.
>
>
>
> at the same time we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site this
> leads to duplicate traffic on the remote PE. to achieve this we should not
> program the path from multi home site towards remote PE until this PE
> elected as DF for that VPWS instance.
>
>
>
> can you please let me know if there are any problems with this kind of
> approach..
>
>
>
> <image.png>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gangadhar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bess&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=dw_cbEJEFGb2ttG_aLztLllgQ6WbTf5f6YdWdNY3Sgo&s=VYEDWxQx9AA9mJMDxJ8_BoKV0xANI0ORk2zfcb3cfF4&e=>
>
>
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to