[bess] Question about draft-rbickhart-evpn-ip-mac-proxy-adv

Hi Wen, First, thank you for this work, I see the problem you’re trying to solve and support trying to do that. I have some questions. Lets say for example, PEs: 1,2,3 have CE1 attached on the same all-active ES. PE4 is a remote PE participating in the same EVPN. CE1’s MAC/IP is learned in

Re: [bess] VXLAN EVPN fabric extension to Hypervisor VM

Hi Gyan, Here, we use a mix of NXOS & Arista EOS for leaf and spine, ASR9k DCI doing L2 + L3 VTEP and stitching to MPLS EVPN / traditional VPNv4/6. We also confess to pockets of proprietary NXOS vPC, and, pockets of Arista ESI-MH. Incidentally, the older Broadcom NXOS boxes do have ESI-MH cap

[bess] Expected forwarding behaviour of RT2 + ESI, for part EVPN implementations

Dear WG, Recently, I discovered 2 EVPN implementations with no support for multihoming functions. In both cases, vendor says RFC7432 section 8 is completely not implemented. One implementation blackholes forwarding to MAC routes received from elsewhere in the EVPN domain which contain non-zero

Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on problem description

y agree with you this is a corner case scenario. And if this goes one, it must explain clearly what the use-case is. Thank you. Jorge From: Eric C Rosen Date: Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:57 PM To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" , Sandy Breeze , "bess@ietf.org" Su

Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on problem description

ntain View) Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 10:58 AM To: Eric Rosen ; Sandy Breeze ; bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on problem description Eric, The way the draft is described makes me think there are no IRB interfaces and this is limited to Ingress

Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on problem description

John, Eric, Jorge, [Sandy] Comments inline On 24/03/2018, 10:57, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>> wrote: Eric, as discussed and you point out, one can easily interpret that IMET is not mandatory in some cases where multi-destination traffic is not n

Re: [bess] WGLC on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework

I think the document is very useful, support Sandy On 26/03/2018, 15:21, "BESS on behalf of stephane.litkow...@orange.com" mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of stephane.litkow...@orange.com> wrote: Hello worki

Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on problem description

anks, Wen From: BESS on behalf of "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 2:54 PM To: "UTTARO, JAMES" , John E Drake , "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" , Eric Rosen , Sandy Breeze , "Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)" Cc: "Ali Sa