PIM Proxy in EVPN Networks
draft-skr-bess-evpn-pim-proxy-01
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jorge Rabadan , Jayant Kotalwar , Senthil Sathappan , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Ali Sajassi | ||
| Last updated | 2018-05-03 (Latest revision 2017-10-30) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Candidate for WG Adoption | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
Ethernet Virtual Private Networks [RFC7432] are becoming prevalent in Data Centers, Data Center Interconnect (DCI) and Service Provider VPN applications. One of the goals that EVPN pursues is the reduction of flooding and the efficiency of CE-based control plane procedures in Broadcast Domains. Examples of this are Proxy ARP/ND and IGMP/MLD Proxy. This document complements the latter, describing the procedures required to minimize the flooding of PIM messages in EVPN Broadcast Domains, and optimize the IP Multicast delivery between PIM routers.
Authors
Jorge Rabadan
Jayant Kotalwar
Senthil Sathappan
Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
Ali Sajassi
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)