BGP EVPN Flood Traffic Optimization at EVPN Gateways
draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | SATYA R MOHANTY , Mrinmoy Ghosh , Ali Sajassi , Sandy Breeze , Jim Uttaro | ||
| Last updated | 2020-05-05 (Latest revision 2019-11-02) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
In EVPN, the Broadcast, Unknown Unicast and Multicast (BUM) traffic is sent to all the routers participating in the EVPN instance. In a multi-homing scenario, when more than one PEs share the same Ethernet Segment, i.e. there are more than one PEs in a redundancy group, only the PE that is the Designated-Forwarder (DF) for the ES will forward that packet on the access interface whereas all non-DF PEs will drop the packet. In deployments such as EVPN Gateways (EVPN GW) or Data Center Interconnect (DCI) routers, this can be quite wasteful. This is especially true if there are significantly more EVPN GW or DCI PEs all participating in the same sets of ES and vES. This draft explores the problem and provides solutions for the same.
Authors
SATYA R MOHANTY
Mrinmoy Ghosh
Ali Sajassi
Sandy Breeze
Jim Uttaro
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)