Closed jbemmel closed 2 years ago
I'm trying to build a topology with VXLAN to the hosts (FRR)
Watch your terminology. "VXLAN to the hosts" means "hosts are VTEPs, switches are just IP routers", which is obviously not the case in your topology.
In this data model, ethernet-1/1.1000 and .1001 are L2 VXLAN interfaces with VNIs; the VLAN access_id is not used.
I'm guessing you're talking about "port-based service", which is not supported by the EVPN module.
Is this how we could/should model pure VXLAN setups? Do we need some conditional logic in interface naming, e.g. if vlan is included in vxlan.vlans then create a pure vxlan interface instead of a svi?
Think about what you're really trying to do for a moment. If two interfaces belong to the same VNI, then they are in the same bridging domain, which makes it totally equivalent to them being in the same VLAN, which makes it perfectly fine to configure those interfaces as VLAN access interfaces. That's also how most ASICs would implement stuff internally.
Can we close this? I guess it's been resolved now that the FRR implementation is complete.
I'm trying to build a topology with VXLAN to the hosts (FRR)
My current approach:
Relevant interfaces:
In this data model, ethernet-1/1.1000 and .1001 are L2 VXLAN interfaces with VNIs; the VLAN access_id is not used.
Is this how we could/should model pure VXLAN setups? Do we need some conditional logic in interface naming, e.g. if vlan is included in vxlan.vlans then create a pure vxlan interface instead of a svi?