Re: About the WG adoption of draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00

["Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[e-mail]>]

What I would like to see is a way to identify the host routes since there
are 2 levels: real loopbacks that need to be installed by default and real
host routes that can be installed on demand. It would be good to show how
the control plane could distinguish them using communities or the likes.

On 30/07/14 08:54, "Xuxiaohu" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Virtual Subnet 
>(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-subnet) is intended
>for building L3 network virtualization overlays within and/or across data
>centers. Since a subnet is extended across multiple PE routers, CE host
>routes need to be exchanged among PE routers. As a result, the forwarding
>table size of PE routers (e.g., some old ToR switches) may become a big
>concern in large-scale data center environments. In fact, some folks had
>already expressed their concerns about this potential FIB scaling issue
>during the WG adoption poll of the Virtual Subnet draft.
>
>As CE host routes may still need to be maintained on the control plane of
>PE routers in some cases (e.g.. MVPN scenario), this draft
>(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00
>) proposes a very simple mechanism for reducing the FIB size of PE
>routers without any change to the RIB and even the routing table.
>
>During the L3VPN WG session at Toronto, many people had expressed their
>supports for the WG adoption of this work (Thanks a lot for your
>supports). However, there are still a few people who are not in favor of
>the WG adoption. According to WG co-chairs' suggestion, I would like to
>request those opposers to explain their reasons so that we could further
>improve the draft if possible.
>
>Best regards,
>Xiaohu (on behalf of all co-authors)
>