Real loopbacks. E.g. A loopback /32 or /128 configured in the VRF On 30/07/14 10:52, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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) >> > >
