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

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Wim,

Did you mean PE's loopback addresses by "real loopbacks"?

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:31 PM
> To: Xuxiaohu; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: About the WG adoption of
> draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00
> 
> 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)
> >