Subject: [bess] FW: draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:01:09 +0000

FYI – per chairs request

From: Nitin Singh <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 5:14 PM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Hassan Hosseini <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Ryan Bickhart <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Manoj Sharma <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, John E Drake <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree
Resent-From: <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Resent-To: <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 4:50 AM

Hi ,

This is regarding the section 3.2 BUM Traffic .   From my reading of the draft it seems that the assumption here is that BUM traffic will  be send with the ESI label  even to the PEs which are not connected to the ESI.

An alternative solution could be to advertise two  IM routes per Ethernet Tag

1) One for  the AC in leaf mode
2) Second for the AC in Root mode

The advantage of the above solution is that we don’t need the ESI label in label stack for the packet send towards the set of PEs not connected to the ESI .

The use of ESI label could be restricted  for forwarding the BUM traffic between MH PEs connected to ESI operating in all-active mode,  as per the SH procedures  described in the RFC 7432 .

Thanks
Nitin