I support the WG adoption simply base on the fact that Cisco DFA has already implemented host route based anycast gateway in very similar manner.
I can also share some points base on my considerations in building real telecom big data center. 1 it is generally agreed virtual servers should never be directly visible to physical network devices. /32 or /128 host route 1:1 maps to virtual server or physical server,need some explanation to justify the exception of rule for proposed draft. 2 physical gateway is usually second or third potential route hop in highly consolidate server environment,it is de facto aggregate rather than access. Need justify the applicability of host route in actual aggregate node. 3 intentionally put less intelligence to network devices that implicate the implementation of virtual subnet is ideally in hypervisor rather than physical router. Boris zhang Sent from my iPad On 2014-02-11, at 8:46 PM, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Giles Heron [mailto:[email protected]] >> 发送时间: 2014年2月11日 19:32 >> 收件人: Thomas Morin >> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] >> 主题: Re: Poll for adoption: draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet >> >> Hi Thomas >> >> I guess the way I see it is that this is such a big limitation that I find >> it hard to >> imagine anyone deploying this solution. > > Hi Giles, > > I suggest you google with the following keywords "Dynamic Fabric Automation > (DFA) host route" and have a look at how host routes are used in the DFA, and > then come back to confirm the above assertion. If you couldn't find it, feel > free to tell me and I will provide you a link. > >> is there any way we could get feedback from some data center operators? >> Perhaps we should ask NVO3 for comments? > > I think the most efficient and simple way is to ask some feedback from your > colleagues who knows about DFA. > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > >> Giles >> >> On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:06, Thomas Morin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Giles, >>> >>> 2014-02-10, Giles Heron: >>>> The draft has a major limitation (no support for interconnecting >>>> routers, but only for interconnecting hosts) [...] >>> >>> That would indeed be an issue if the document was aiming standard track to >> address a specific use case including router interconnections, or if the >> limitation >> was not documented. But, the document is not aiming standard track, and has >> a section to document limitations to which the working group may contribute >> text for this particular limitation. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> sorry - just spotted the poll has already closed. >>> >>> The date had been mistakenly set 10 days too early. >>> The poll is not closed yet. >>> >>> -Thomas >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >
