Hi John & Everyone & Community, In my scene, it is the demand to put multiple subnets in one BD. A few days ago, I have found the other proper idea to implement the demand mentioned in the mail subject and original mail.
This problem and mail can be close now. Have a nice day, everybody! Thanks & Regards, Huawei LI > 2022年10月21日 00:45，John Lo <lojultra2...@outlook.com> 写道： > > Hi Huawei, > > Some comments on supporting multiple BVIs in a BD: > > 1. There are assumptions in the bridging code including only 1 BVI per BD and > it will be the last interface of a BD's flood list. To support multiple BVIs > per BD will make the code more complicated and less efficient from > performance point of view. > > 2. All interfaces, including BVI, in a BD can talk to each other via MAC > address learning. There is no concept of L3 IP address nor awareness of IPs > in separate VRFs. Thus, the concept of multiple BVIs in a BD each in > different VRFs does not match the L2 bridging concept. While it may be > possible to enhance BD support to understand IP and VRF at L3, it will again > make the code more complicated and affect performance. > > My question would be, isn't it more natural to put each subnet in a separate > BD with its BVI in the desired VRF? > > Regards, > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: lihuawei <lihuawei_...@163.com> > Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 11:30 PM > To: o...@cisco.com; fiva...@cisco.com; klement.sek...@gmail.com; Neale Ranns > <ne...@graphiant.com>; lojultra2...@outlook.com; slu...@cisco.com; > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > Subject: snat support bind to specific subnets > > Hi Ole, Filip, Klement, Neale, John, Steven, &Community, > > I have a demand about snat. With in a vpc, different subnets need use > different snat ip to the internet, but the vpp snat feature now do not > support snat ip bind to specific subnets. I have two ideas to resolve this: > 1. modify and develop snat feature to support snat ip bind to specific > subnets. > 2. use multiple vrfs to isolate subnets, one vrf’s subnets use one snat ip, > but the bd bvi now only support one in one bd, the non-bvi loop does not > forward L3. So modify and develop bd bvi to support multiple bvi interfaces > in one bd may be one better idea. > > Do I understand right and the idea 2 is the better? Anybody who has better > idea, please help. > > Thanks and Regards, > Huawei LI
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#22061): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/22061 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/94377538/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/leave/1480452/21656/631435203/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
