Hi Sasha, I replied to your other email. Section 1.2 assumes the IP Prefix route is advertised with a non-reserved ESI and the A-D per ES/EVI routes are used for resolution on the remote PE. So there is indeed mass withdraw, that is the improvement over the RFC9136 IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF interface-less model.
Thanks. Jorge From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 11:38 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See http://nok.it/ext for additional information. Re-sending with a reduced list of addressees… Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 11:30 AM To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: Dmitry Valdman <[email protected]>; Nitsan Dolev <[email protected]>; Michael Gorokhovsky <[email protected]>; Ron Sdayoor <[email protected]>; Egon Haparnass <[email protected]>; Shell Nakash <[email protected]>; Marina Fizgeer <[email protected]>; Orly Kariv <[email protected]>; Moti Morgenstern <[email protected]>; Rotem Cohen <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft Importance: High Hi all, #3 issue in my original email seems to equally affect mass withdrawal of IP Prefix routes in the Interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF scenario in general
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
