Giles,
> 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.
>From draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-04:
An EVPN instance comprises
CEs that are connected to PEs that form the edge of the MPLS
infrastructure. A CE may be a host, a router or a switch. The PEs
provide virtual Layer 2 bridged connectivity between the CEs.
>From the above quote it should be clear that while it is true that
"E-VPN supports interconnection of routers", it is also true that
E-VPN supports interconnection of hosts and/or switches.
Yakov.
>
> 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 th e 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: adve
rtising non aggregated host routes (v4 /32 routes or v6 /128 routes) in BGP VPN
v4 routes is not fundamentally different from a scaling standpoint than adverti
sing MAC addresses in E-VPN BGP routes.
> > What would be the reason to believe it would be an issue in one case but no
t 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 w
ithin contained DC zone environment will not scale be a bit more precise and ki
ndly 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]> w
rote:
> >>
> >> > I don't support adoption of this draft as a WG item (speaking as a non-a
uthor 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 hos
t routes around in BGP will scale.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
