EVPN-VxLAN Multihoming HLD #1638
Conversation
|
|
|
@mikemallin is this proposal based on the previous community proposals for MH |
Yuval-Mellanox
requested review from
marian-pritsak
and removed request for
marian-pritsak
|
@Yuval-Mellanox @zhangyanzhao the EVPN MH proposals from Cisco and BRCM are under active review in the Routing WG, the eventual goal is to reach a converged solution for the extended community, I haven't seen a HLD from #1412 yet, but if any org or individual is interested in contributing to EVPN MH, please reachout to the Routing WG sonic-wg-routing@lists.sonicfoundation.dev |
This is the proposal that has been presented by Cisco at the Routing WG a few weeks ago. |
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| "ETHERNET_SEGMENT_TABLE:PortChannel01": { | ||
| "interface" = "PortChannel01" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need the same "PortChannel01" in the table name as "interface" field?
| <a id="313-sai-overview"></a> | ||
| ### 3.1.3 SAI Overview | ||
|
|
||
| Add a new attribute "SAI_BRIDGE_PORT_ATTR_DF_BLOCK" in sai_bridge_port_attr_t to indicate that the bridge port is blocked to forward any BUM traffic received from the Tunnel. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As soon as I understand - we support only VLAN-VNI mapping and not the bridging between vxlan interface and some physical port.
If this is true - we don't need this requirement, right?
Hello! I'd suggest waiting for now as a new, combined HLD is underway. |
|
Converged HLD posted as #1702, closing this PR |
This HLD introduces support for EVPN-VXLAN Multihoming on SONiC.