|
|
1 |
(% class="row" %) |
|
|
2 |
((( |
|
|
3 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-8 test-report-content" %) |
|
|
4 |
((( |
|
|
5 |
---- |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
Previously, both symmetric and asymmetric IRB were implemented as distributed solutions, meaning each IRB functioned as a full-featured device capable of handling both Layer 2 and Layer 3 traffic independently. In this test case, we introduce a centralized Layer 3 gateway. Unlike distributed gateways, the centralized gateway is responsible solely for Layer 3 routing traffic, while leaf PEs manage Layer 2 bridging traffic. Centralized gateways simplify the control plane and are particularly well-suited for small-scale data center networks characterized by limited north-south traffic but a predominance of east-west traffic. |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
In our test, we simulated two SR-MPLS domains. And two centralized Layer 3 Gateway was deployed. We verified that Layer 3 unicast routing traffic had been transmitted through the two Layer 3 gateways, and that Layer 2 bridging unicast traffic had not been sent out through the Layer 3 Gateways. We also observed no packet loss during the whole procedure. |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
[[~[~[Figure 23: EVPN SR-MPLS centralized L3 Gateway~>~>image:486469475698475009_MPLS-1.20.png~|~|alt="Figure 23" width="550"~]~]>>attach:486469475698475009_MPLS-1.20.png||target="_blank"]] |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
(% id="prev-next-links" %) |
|
|
14 |
|[[< Previous>>doc:Asymmetric IRB VLAN-based interface]]|[[Next ~>>>doc:EVPN Interworking with IPVPN]] |
|
|
15 |
))) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
17 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-4 test-report-sidebar" %) |
|
|
18 |
((( |
|
|
19 |
{{box}} |
|
|
20 |
{{include reference="Main.EANTC Transport & Cloud Networks Interop Test Report 2026.Sidebar Nav"/}} |
|
|
21 |
{{/box}} |
|
|
22 |
))) |
|
|
23 |
))) |
