Hi Vinayak, I think we can certainly add a sentence if it helps. I’ll discuss with the other co-authors.
Thanks for bringing this up. Jorge From: Joshi, Vinayak <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at 2:37 AM To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[email protected]>, 'BESS' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution with EVPN UMR & Inter-DC Mobility CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Jorge, Thank you for the clarification. Should this be part of the standards? 1. In GW-Based Proxy-ARP-ND the GW makes an exception for IP/MACs that have moved across. 2. Th PE receiving it should purely use it for mobility procedures. I.e. should not use the RT-2 to program L3 host-routes or use it for Proxy ARP? a. Or, maybe this can be left to implementation? Regards, Vinayak From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 3:53 AM To: Joshi, Vinayak <[email protected]>; 'BESS' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution with EVPN UMR & Inter-DC Mobility Hi Vinayak, I still believe the mobility procedure using the UMR can be applied in the GW-based proxy-ARP/ND solution. In this model, the gateway would advertise the UMR along with only those MAC/IP Advertisement routes that correspond to MACs moving across domains. The leaf routers can then leverage these MAC/IP routes to execute the required mobility procedures. Thanks. Jorge From: Joshi, Vinayak <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Sunday, September 14, 2025 at 8:07 PM To: 'BESS' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [bess] Re: GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution with EVPN UMR & Inter-DC Mobility You don't often get email from [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. Learn why this is important<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification__;!!NpxR!mHSduymPeiTHs9aQJN0ZxUKu30GIrneeUZaGhbj3ymxppBKh6yBAmQnbXYb1H4lifkVTkJuoNdg3atzB5isZ8hw2e2-_KLFJ$> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi, Any thoughts on this? In case of GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution inform the PEs about mobility across DCs when the GW is not expected to sent out RT-2? Regards, Vinayak From: Joshi, Vinayak Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 6:11 PM To: 'BESS' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution with EVPN UMR & Inter-DC Mobility Hi all, Is it correct to say that GW-based Proxy ARP/ND Solution (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-umr-mobility-03.html#name-gw-based-proxy-arp-nd-solut<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-umr-mobility-03.html*name-gw-based-proxy-arp-nd-solut__;Iw!!NpxR!mHSduymPeiTHs9aQJN0ZxUKu30GIrneeUZaGhbj3ymxppBKh6yBAmQnbXYb1H4lifkVTkJuoNdg3atzB5isZ8hw2e4IlB-D8$>) should not be deployed when inter-DC mobility of end hosts is possible? This is because even if the GW maintains mobility sequence number per network (local/interconnects) it does not advertise MAC/IP routes into the local DC (DC 1 in the draft) in this solution. Hence, it doesn’t help PEs in DC1 to recognize MAC move to DC2. Regards, Vinayak
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
