Does the draft insist that all connections from the DC for all VPNs are using Option A? From the reading of the draft this would seem to be a hard requirement to get the needed ARP resolution for a given context.
The scalability in terms of number of paths allowed into the VRF/Context is generally limited across the set of PEs servicing a given PE. This is not small but represents the aggregate across all VRF sites. If all paths are host routes on the WAN PE wont we blow past the routing limit and forwarding limits? . I think it is important to remember that virtualization is an extension of the traditional WAN VPN, customers want to place apps in their own and third party DCs,. This does not mean that the traditional WAN links are no longer there. Jim Uttaro -----Original Message----- From: L3VPN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 9:04 PM To: Giles Heron Cc: Thomas Morin; [email protected]; L3VPN Subject: Re: Poll for adoption: draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet Thomas, I too object to it's adoption based on the /32 point Giles made. I think I raised this point when the draft was first presented a while back, and the numerous other times it has been proposed. This original issue appears to still exist at the heart of this solution. Perhaps I am missing something, but I also don't see a direct WG charter item that this document satisfies at the present time. --Tom 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. > > sorry - just spotted the poll has already closed. > > On 4 Feb 2014, at 13:35, Thomas Morin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello working group, >> >> This email starts a two-week poll on adopting >> draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet [1] as a working group item. >> >> Please send comments to the list and state if you support adoption or >> not (in the later case, please also state the reasons). >> >> This poll runs until February 9th. >> >> >> *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that >> applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in >> compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 >> and 5378 for more details). >> >> ==> *If you are listed as a document author or contributor* please >> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any >> relevant IPR. >> >> The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from >> each author and contributor. >> >> If you are on the L3VPN WG mailing list but are not listed as an author >> or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of >> any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Martin & Thomas >> l3vpn chairs >> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet > >
