Hi Robert, Please see inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Robert Raszuk > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:52 AM > To: Yakov Rekhter > Cc: Thomas Narten; Kireeti Kompella; Aldrin Isaac; NAPIERALA, MARIA H; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Multi-subnet VNs [was Re: FW: New Version > Notification for draft-yong-nvo3-frwk-dpreq-addition-00.txt] > > Hi Yakov, > > > The claim you made in the last paragraph above is factually incorrect > > - in the context of DC, EVPN can address *not* "only packets bridged > > in the same VLAN", but *also* can be used to provide (optimal) > routing > > among VMs in *different* VLANs (different IP subnets). For more > details > > Allow me to observe that the goal of DC design is not only to to > provide optimal routing within the DC various VLANs (different IP > subnets) and treat DCs are isolated islands. [Lucy] yes, I see this use case. > > For a fact I am currently working on integration of DC tenant VPNs > with *existing* deployed L3VPNs in the WAN network. [Lucy] would you mind say which option in rfc4346 fit to your application? > > In this respect yr claim that EVPN solves the problem is factually > incorrect too as it requires to build EVPN (SAFI 70) to RFC4364 (SAFI > 128) gateways or to transition my WAN to be now EVPN based. Both > options as you can imagine are not that operationally attractive. [Lucy] Then, what is the proper operational way for your application? Do you see that E-IP-VPN may bring operation attractive? Lucy > > Best wishes, > Robert. > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
