Hi Eduard, As my understanding, these statements are not contradictory because mass withdrawal is an optional functionality. Section 8.3 says when PEs are operating All-Active redundancy mode, Ethernet A-D per Ethernet Segment Route must be advertised for split horizon. This would be reason why section 8.2.1 says "not needed" in case of single-homed scenarios.
I understand these sentences as: - Implementations can use Ethernet A-D per ES routes to achieve mass withdrawal for single-homed CE (optional) - If Implementations want to achieve mass withdrawal, Ethernet A-D per ES routes should be used The implementation I'm using does not support mass withdrawal for single-homed CE. If there is any misunderstanding, I would appreciate it if you could point it out. Thanks, Yuya On 2021/12/08 4:24, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
Hi EVPN guru, It looks like RFC 7432 section 8.2.1 (Constructing Ethernet A-D per Ethernet Segment Route) has an error: "The Ethernet A-D route is not needed when the Segment Identifier is set to 0 (e.g., single-homed scenarios)." Because without "per ES route" it would not be possible to signal "mass withdrawal" If CE-PE connection would fail That plainly promised for single-homed CEs in section 8.2: " If no other PE had advertised an Ethernet A-D route for the same segment, then the PE that received the withdrawal simply invalidates the MAC entries for that segment." Or implied in section 17.3: "The Ethernet A-D per ES routes should be used by an implementation to optimize the withdrawal of MAC/IP Advertisement routes." Have I missed something? Eduard _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
