|
|
1 |
(% class="row" %) |
|
|
2 |
((( |
|
|
3 |
(% class="col-xs-12 col-sm-8 test-report-content" %) |
|
|
4 |
((( |
|
|
5 |
---- |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
This is a continuous test of unnumbered IPv6 underlay. While unnumbered underlays offer benefits such as reduced configuration complexity and fewer human errors, they also present challenges—namely, they are harder to identify and cannot be routed globally. For this reason, we used a numbered underlay in this test. Additionally, we changed the overlay to IPv6, resulting in a pure IPv6 underlay and overlay setup. The hosts, however, remain IPv4, so we reused the existing IPv4 symmetric IRB interface to validate interoperability with the IPv6 setup. We generated full-mesh unicast traffic using Keysight IxNetwork and observed no packet loss, confirming that the numbered IPv6 underlay and overlay functioned as expected. |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
[[~[~[Figure 27: EVPN IPv6 VTEPs first combination~>~>image:486469475703259137_VXLAN-1.32_1.png~|~|alt="Figure 27" width="450"~]~]>>attach:486469475703259137_VXLAN-1.32_1.png||target="_blank"]] |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
[[~[~[Figure 28: EVPN IPv6 VTEPs second combination~>~>image:486469475703324673_VXLAN-1.32_2.png~|~|alt="Figure 28" width="500"~]~]>>attach:486469475703324673_VXLAN-1.32_2.png||target="_blank"]] |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
(% id="prev-next-links" %) |
|
|
14 |
|[[< Previous>>doc:EVPN performance and fault management]]|[[Next ~>>>doc:Preference-Based Designated Forwarder (DF) Election with auto-generated Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI)]] |
|
|
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 |
))) |
