Hi Thomas, There are two key differences between E-VPN and virtual-subnet wrt scaling:
1) E-VPN supports interconnection of routers. virtual-subnet doesn't. One of the key use-cases for a multi-point L2 service is to interconnect routers. 2) As well as E-VPN we are standardising PBB E-VPN in L2VPN. PBB E-VPN only advertises provider MAC addresses in BGP. Client MACs are learned/cached in the data plane. Giles On 11 Feb 2014, at 09:56, Thomas Morin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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]> >> 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. >> >> >
