Hi everyone,

Jeffrey, not sure how much of EVPN this solution is, since there are no 
‘overlay’ routes advertised. In fact the draft says that no routes type 1..4 
are needed at all.
But I see your point Jeffrey, and I agree the concept of the source 
identification is not SR specific.

@Sami,

I couldn’t speak during the meeting so I’ll throw a couple of general 
comments/questions:


  1.  While I see the anycast-SID as an interesting point, I disagree with the 
document’s motivation that EVPN needed to introduce control-plane learning due 
to the MP2P tunnels. Control plane learning has a lot of advantages and 
data-plane learning/aging has tons of issues. So this should be debated in the 
WG.



  1.  Irrespective, the anycast-SID idea could work in regular EVPN as an 
optional alternative to aliasing. You don’t need to do data-plane learning for 
that, right?



  1.  The document seems to claim fast mac move. How can that be guaranteed if 
the mac learning is data plane based?



  1.  ARP suppression is not a merit of this solution. It could work even in 
RFC4761/74762 VPLS networks.



I have a few more, but those are enough to start.
Thank you!
Jorge


From: BESS <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 12:46 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [bess] comments on draft-boutros-bess-elan-services-over-sr
Hi,

It seems that the draft is about using data-plane mac learning in an EVPN-like 
solution. That retains other properties of EVPN, but removes the need for 
advertising MAC addresses, with the consequences/problems that Ali was trying 
to point out.

Leaving the pros and cons of data plane mac learning out, I want to point out 
that the idea is actually orthogonal with SR - even if SR were not invented 
this concept still applies. With VXLAN the source address corresponds to the 
"source node SID", and with MPLS the "PE Distinguisher Label" in MVPN (and 
extended to other use cases) serves the same purpose. That same "PE 
Distinguisher Label" concept is also used in my Generic Fragmentation proposal.

With that, the discussion for this draft should be in BESS, not in SPRING.

Jeffrey

Juniper Business Use Only

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to