Kireeti, Comments inline.
> > > Intra-subnet traffic can be also handled by a layer 3 overlay. > > Let me expand. > > I see the need for E-VPN for non-IP traffic. This is real, and is not > met by IP VPNs (news flash!) [Lucy] Without IP, there is not subnet. So E-VPN works well. > > For IP traffic, whether intra and inter-subnet, IP VPNs suffice. > > The solution is simple: route if IP, bridge if not. Yes, one could do > IRB, but why? IRB brings in complications, especially for multicast. > I'm sure someone suggested this already, so put me down as supporting > this view. > > A NVE that supports both E-VPN and IP VPN for a given tenant simply > sends IP traffic to the IP VPN and sends the rest to E-VPN. How this > happens is implementation specific. Note that this assumes that the > NVE intercepts ARPs and responds to them with the same MAC. Does > anyone see a problem with this? [Lucy] This may have an issue if NVE is remote. ARP message may reach both another TS and NVE. Do you want to mandate that each TS can not response any message or mandate that there is never a switch between TS and NVE. Regards, Lucy _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
