Hi Wim, Did you mean PE's loopback addresses by "real loopbacks"?
Best regards, Xiaohu > -----Original Message----- > From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:31 PM > To: Xuxiaohu; [email protected] > Subject: Re: About the WG adoption of > draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00 > > What I would like to see is a way to identify the host routes since there are > 2 > levels: real loopbacks that need to be installed by default and real host > routes > that can be installed on demand. It would be good to show how the control > plane could distinguish them using communities or the likes. > > On 30/07/14 08:54, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > >Virtual Subnet > >(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-subnet) is > >intended for building L3 network virtualization overlays within and/or > >across data centers. Since a subnet is extended across multiple PE > >routers, CE host routes need to be exchanged among PE routers. As a > >result, the forwarding table size of PE routers (e.g., some old ToR > >switches) may become a big concern in large-scale data center > >environments. In fact, some folks had already expressed their concerns > >about this potential FIB scaling issue during the WG adoption poll of the > >Virtual > Subnet draft. > > > >As CE host routes may still need to be maintained on the control plane > >of PE routers in some cases (e.g.. MVPN scenario), this draft > >(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction > >-00 > >) proposes a very simple mechanism for reducing the FIB size of PE > >routers without any change to the RIB and even the routing table. > > > >During the L3VPN WG session at Toronto, many people had expressed their > >supports for the WG adoption of this work (Thanks a lot for your > >supports). However, there are still a few people who are not in favor > >of the WG adoption. According to WG co-chairs' suggestion, I would like > >to request those opposers to explain their reasons so that we could > >further improve the draft if possible. > > > >Best regards, > >Xiaohu (on behalf of all co-authors) > >
