Hi Wim, In the Virtual Subnet context, the host route corresponding to the VRF interface address doesn't need to be advertised.
Best regards, Xiaohu > -----Original Message----- > From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:55 PM > To: Xuxiaohu; [email protected] > Subject: Re: About the WG adoption of > draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00 > > 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-reduct > >> >ion > >> >-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) > >> > > >
