Thank you Jorge for the clarification. From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) [mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 1:34 PM To: Joshi, Vinayak <vinayak.jo...@hpe.com>; bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: Query about Ethernet Tag Id for TYpe-5 routes (RFC 9136)
Hi Vinayak, RFC9136 does not have any use case for the use of a non-zero ethernet tag id. The IP Prefix route includes the ethernet tag id as part of the key for consistency with the rest of the EVPN service routes, for future use. Thanks. Jorge From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Joshi, Vinayak <vinayak.jo...@hpe.com<mailto:vinayak.jo...@hpe.com>> Date: Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:33 AM To: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: [bess] Query about Ethernet Tag Id for TYpe-5 routes (RFC 9136) Hi all, RFC 9136 says the following (Section 3.1) " The RD, Ethernet Tag ID, IP prefix length, and IP prefix are part of the route key used by BGP to compare routes. The rest of the fields are not part of the route key. With VLAN Aware Bundling the Eth Tag ID acts as a distinguisher for the routes while importing into L2-VRF. But for L3 prefix routes what is the use case for setting the Ether Tag ID to any non-zero value? Thanks in advance, Vinayak
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
