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

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Wim,

In the Virtual Subnet context, the host route corresponding to the VRF interface address doesn't need to be advertised.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:55 PM
> To: Xuxiaohu; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: About the WG adoption of
> draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00
> 
> Real loopbacks. E.g. A loopback /32 or /128 configured in the VRF
> 
> On 30/07/14 10:52, "Xuxiaohu" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >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-reduct
> >> >ion
> >> >-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)
> >> >
> >