Hi Joel,
Thanks for your review and comments, please see inline for my reply marked with AS>:
On 7/6/20, 8:06 PM, "Joel Jaeggli via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli
Review result: Ready
greetings,
I have reviewed draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding on behalf of the
ops directorate.
as a datacenter operator something of a conflict appears for me in this work in
that I struggle with the state explosion that IRBs each host / subnet
represent on the PE switches. As the document says:
In other words, each PE participating in
asymmetric IRB MUST maintain ARP entries for remote hosts (hosts
connected to other PEs) as well as maintain MAC-VRFs/BTs and IRB
interfaces for ALL subnets in an IP VRF including subnets that may
not be locally attached.
We designed ourselves into a corner where we need this document.
it would be helpful if section 4 would be more explicit for non-implementors on
when symetric or asymetric modules would be chosen, as it stands the variation
basically reads like the enumeration of the features of various implementations.
AS> There are tradeoffs between symmetric and asymmetric IRB among which the scale in terms of # of bridge tables, # of ARP entries, and # of MAC addresses that a PE need to keep. I will add a note to section 4 that for asymmetric IRB application, careful consideration needs to be given for these scale aspects.
Regards,
Ali
I think this document is ready to proceed and it clearly addresses needs in
these implementations.
joel
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
