|
|
1 |
(% class="row" %) |
|
|
2 |
((( |
|
|
3 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-8 test-report-content" %) |
|
|
4 |
((( |
|
|
5 |
---- |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
In this section, we focus on the second IRB operation model: the asymmetric model. Asymmetric IRB, like symmetric IRB, is used to interconnect Layer 2 and Layer 3 in complex network environments. The key distinction lies in the processing method: in asymmetric IRB, the ingress Provider Edge (PE) performs a sequence of three lookups—MAC, then IP, then MAC again—while the egress PE only conducts a single MAC lookup. That's also why BGP EVPN RT-5 is not tested in this test case: the egress DUT checks only MAC-VRF. |
|
|
8 |
We validated both testbeds by sending end-to-end unicast traffic: first on the EVPN-SR-MPLS testbed, then on the EVPN-VXLAN testbed. In both cases, there was no packet loss. |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
[[~[~[Figure 20: EVPN SR-MPLS Asymmetric VLAN-based IRB combi 1~>~>image:486469475696771073_MPLS-1.18_1.png~|~|alt="Figure 20" width="354"~]~]>>attach:486469475696771073_MPLS-1.18_1.png||target="_blank"]] |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
12 |
[[~[~[Figure 21: EVPN SR-MPLS Asymmetric VLAN-based IRB combi 2~>~>image:486469475696836609_MPLS-1.18_2.png~|~|alt="Figure 21" width="350"~]~]>>attach:486469475696836609_MPLS-1.18_2.png||target="_blank"]] |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
14 |
[[~[~[Figure 22: EVPN VXLAN Asymmetric VLAN-based IRB combi 1~>~>image:486469475696902145_VXLAN-1.18.png~|~|alt="Figure 22" width="450"~]~]>>attach:486469475696902145_VXLAN-1.18.png||target="_blank"]] |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
16 |
(% id="prev-next-links" %) |
|
|
17 |
|[[< Previous>>doc:Symmetric Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) VLAN-based Interface]]|[[Next ~>>>doc:Centralized L3 Gateway]] |
|
|
18 |
))) |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
20 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-4 test-report-sidebar" %) |
|
|
21 |
((( |
|
|
22 |
{{box}} |
|
|
23 |
{{include reference="Main.EANTC Transport & Cloud Networks Interop Test Report 2026.Sidebar Nav"/}} |
|
|
24 |
{{/box}} |
|
|
25 |
))) |
|
|
26 |
))) |
