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

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

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)