You have a mixed vendor EVPN environment and you need to ensure VXLAN interoperability between all devices.
In tins scenario, winch statement is correct?
You have a mixed vendor EVPN environment and you need to ensure VXLAN interoperability between all devices.
In tins scenario, winch statement is correct?
In a mixed vendor EVPN environment, ensuring VXLAN interoperability requires the use of both Type 2 and Type 5 routes. Type 2 routes facilitate the VLAN-aware bundle service model, while Type 5 routes support the prefix advertisement model. Utilizing both types of routes enables compatibility across different vendors and enhances the functionality of the network.
should be B; https://blogs.juniper.net/en-us/service-provider-transformation/juniper-delivers-evpn-vxlan-data-center-fabric-overlays-with-multi-vendor-interoperability "The recommended approach of using EVPN Type 5 routes for multi-vendor fabric environments is possible due to the fact that it has fewer dependencies on other EVPN route types and because most vendors have adopted precisely the same Type 5 route IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF interface-less service model."
I think C is correct, 1)"With IETF standards-based EVPN-VXLAN on Junos software, this can be achieved even when remote locations are located behind multiple IP domains or connected to different vendors supporting EVPN Type 2 (VLAN-aware bundle service) model or EVPN Type 5 (prefix advertisement) model" 2)"............in order to benefit from more advanced features such as EVPN-VXLAN stitching or pure overlay multicast. Alternatively, POD2 could be from a different vendor supporting EVPN Type 5 routes or EVPN Type 2 VLAN-aware bundle service type."
It doesn't say all vendors however, so the answer is C.
Option C is correct. https://blogs.juniper.net/en-us/service-provider-transformation/juniper-delivers-evpn-vxlan-data-center-fabric-overlays-with-multi-vendor-interoperability