BGP EVPN Flood Traffic Optimization
draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Satya Mohanty , Mrinmoy Ghosh , Sandy Breeze , Jim Uttaro | ||
| Last updated | 2018-09-06 (Latest revision 2018-03-05) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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. From the perspective of the network, this is quite wasteful. This is especially true if there are significantly more PEs on the Ethernet Segment. This draft explores this problem and provides a solution for the same.
Authors
Satya Mohanty
Mrinmoy Ghosh
Sandy Breeze
Jim Uttaro
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)