In that case you can argue why not do it for all routes as well. On 30/07/14 11:30, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Why do you need to distinguish them from each other? In other words, why >can't PE routers process the host route to a given VRF loopback address >of a remote PE router as a normal remote host route (i.e., on-demand >installation)? > >Best regards, >Xiaohu > >-----Original Message----- >From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:20 PM >To: Xuxiaohu; [email protected] >Subject: Re: About the WG adoption of >draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00 > >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-red >>> >> >uct >>> >> >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) >>> >> > >>> > >> >
