IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 30 July 2014 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD551B29F9 for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 01:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JkI0nYYuw7O0 for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 01:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 078FB1A059F for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 01:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 1F0C54BF8CD2A; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:54:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s6U8soG9030768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:54:52 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.52]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:54:52 +0200
From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Xuxiaohu <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>, "l3vpn@ietf.org" <l3vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: About the WG adoption of draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00
Thread-Topic: About the WG adoption of draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00
Thread-Index: Ac+rwxWYhfVtX4WJRN+4Ph691FmBRgADXL+AAACoj5AAAC+oAA==
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:54:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CFFE7F16.E5BA0%wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE08298798@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com> <CFFE797B.E5B49%wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com> <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0829882F@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE0829882F@NKGEML512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1CBF65DEE76BFA4287A72D62457C1298@exchange.lucent.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3vpn/Jnw5itrXME4gqFFUBnM9_t4Lpoo
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:54:55 -0000

Real loopbacks. E.g. A loopback /32 or /128 configured in the VRF

On 30/07/14 10:52, "Xuxiaohu" <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> wrote:

>Hi Wim,
>
>Did you mean PE's loopback addresses by "real loopbacks"?
>
>Best regards,
>Xiaohu
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:31 PM
>> To: Xuxiaohu; l3vpn@ietf.org
>> 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" <xuxiaohu@huawei.com> 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)
>> >
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email