Respected Authors, Appreciate your efforts and hard work put in this draft. I have one small query on this draft. In a service provider network the probability of upgrading all the routers at the same time are very low. In that case a router is not capable of understanding this new community, it will be dropping the advertisement correct me if I am wrong.
section 3.1 In other words, in case of discrepancy, the multi-homing for that pair of PEs is assumed to be in default "root" mode for that or . The leaf indication flag on Ethernet A-D per EVI route tells the receiving PEs that all MAC addresses associated with this or are from a leaf site. Therefore, if a PE receives a leaf indication for an AC via the Ethernet A-D per EVI route but doesn’t receive a leaf indication in the corresponding MAC route, then it notify the operator and ignore the leaf indication on the Ethernet A-D per EVI route. section 3.2.1 This Leaf label is advertised to other PE devices, using a new EVPN Extended Community called E-TREE Extended Community (section 5.1) along with an Ethernet A-D per ES route with ESI of zero and a set of Route Targets (RTs) corresponding to all EVIs on the PE with at least one leaf site per EVI. Correct me if I am wrong,apologies for redundant question section 3.1 says the leaf label is advertised on type 1 AD per EVI and section 3.2.1 says type 1 AD per ES. which one will be used. Now in a scenario where PE does not understand the new community acting as a root, if the type 1 route is coming from leaf node in a ES. Then if the remote PE drops the type 1 advertisement because it is not able to follow the the new community. How to take care of this kind of issue. Regards, Sudhin
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
