On Feb 11, 2014:10:04 AM, at 10:04 AM, Thomas Morin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> 2014-02-11, Thomas Nadeau:
>>> 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 ?
>>
>> I think you are missing the point that was raised: its not that BGP will
>> not scale well;
>
> (Giles initial point, that you supported, was a that he was unconvinced it
> would scale.)
Anyways, MY point then is not around BGP per se; its the approach. *)
>> as a protocol its clearly shown that it can ship around millions of routes
>> and lots of other stuff as it has become the "dump truck" of the protocol
>> world. The question is more of the approach - do we want to be shuffling
>> around /32s (regardless of protocol) given that there are other solutions
>> that work well without doing so? I would also question the use of BGP in a
>> Data Center given past operational feedback in NVO3 for example, but that is
>> orthogonal to the question of the mechanics of this solution.
>
> This discussion about putting /32s in BGP is absolutely not specific to
> draft-..-virtual-subnet (see E-VPN, end-system l3vpn).
Cool.
--Tom
>
> -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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
