Dear authors, These are the comments that I couldn’t ask/say during the BESS session:
# Major comment: I believe section 5.1 is not correct: “... GW MAC/IP MUST be advertised with a higher sequence number. ...” And as per draft 7432bis: “MAC Mobility extended community SHALL NOT be attached to routes which also have Default Gateway extended community on the sending side and SHALL be ignored on the receiving side.” And section 7.13.1 in the 7432bis takes care of the GW MAC/IPs being protected and not subject to mobility. So IMHO the entire section 5.1 is not needed. # Minor comments: ## If section 5.1 was the only new extension to EVPN, then it is not needed and the draft can be Informational? ## The following text: ”Optionally, the CAG IRB nodes may also have directly connected end-points.” And this one: “In case of VXLAN encapsulation, set of redundant CAG PEs provisioned as FHR for a common set of subnets MAY advertise the anycast GW MAC/IP RT-2 with an anycast VTEP IP as the next-hop.” Are not really compatible. So you should consider to explain that single-homed local CAG ACs are only possible if anycast VTEPs are NOT used. ## section 6.1.3 on split horizon groups on the CAGs should just follow RFC9014. I don’t think there is any new procedure here? Hope my comments are helpful. Thank you! Jorge
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
