Why not, if I configure a loopback in the VRF it has to be advertised, this is generic VRF functionality, nothing to do with virtual subnet. I am not talking to the IP address on the virtual subnet interface. In this case you need to distinguish between host routes and these VRFs. Using communities is the best way afais.
On 30/07/14 10:59, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote: >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) >> >> > >> > >
