Hi Giles, Thomas,
I would echo Robert's questions below, and ask an additional question:
advertising non aggregated host routes (v4 /32 routes or v6 /128 routes)
in BGP VPNv4 routes is not fundamentally different from a scaling
standpoint than advertising MAC addresses in E-VPN BGP routes.
What would be the reason to believe it would be an issue in one case but
not in the other ?
-Thomas
2014-02-11, Robert Raszuk:
<changing subject to reflect more broader l3vpn related topic>
Hi,
Could those who claim that that sending /32 or /64 or /128 in BGP
mainly within contained DC zone environment will not scale be a bit
more precise and kindly indicate what the real problem is ?
* Which control or data plane element will not scale ?
or
* Which part of BGP state machine will not scale ?
Just curious ....
Cheers,
R.
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Thomas Nadeau
>
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thomas,
I too object to it's adoption based on the /32 point Giles
made.
On Feb 10, 2014:2:29 PM, at 2:29 PM, Giles Heron
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I don't support adoption of this draft as a WG item (speaking as
a non-author but name-checked commenter).
>
> The draft has a major limitation (no support for interconnecting
routers, but only for interconnecting hosts), and I'm unconvinced
that passing /32 host routes around in BGP will scale.
