Hi Xiaohu, > Although our original intention is to make this draft as an informational > draft, > it seems fine to me to make it as a standard track draft if the WG believe > that > extended community needs to be standardized.
FYI: IANA allocated BGP communities are FCFS. Depending on your use case, you may want a non-transitive extended community which will be FCFS as soon as draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities gets published i.e. as soon as draft-ietf-idr-as4octet-extcomm-generic-subtype get implemented (<ad> so feel free to implement this short draft in your spare time. ;-) </ad> ) So the draft may be kept informational is this was you intention. Regards, Bruno > > Best regards, > Xiaohu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:28 PM > To: Xuxiaohu; [email protected] > Subject: Re: About the WG adoption of draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib- > reduction-00 > > The question is than do we want to standardise this community? > > On 31/07/14 09:24, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi Wim, > > > >Great. How about adding the following text somewhere in the draft: > > > >"If one or more particular remote host routes need to be installed by > >default for whatever reasons, the best way to realize such goal is to > >attach a special extended community attribute to those particular host > >routes by originating PE routers or route reflectors. Upon receiving > >any host routes attached with the above extended community attribute, > >non-APR PE routers would install them by default" > > > >Of course, it would be much appreciated if you could provide some text. > > > >Best regards, > >Xiaohu > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > >> [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 6:11 PM > >> To: Xuxiaohu; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: About the WG adoption of > >> draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00 > >> > >> See right now there is /32 or /128 routes which can come from hosts > >>in virtual subnet/CE-PE protocol/static routes/loopbacks/etc and to > >>figure out the origin you have very little means doing so. So if an > >>operator wants to distinguish the installation by default in the FIB > >>it would be good to tag the origin and he can than decide based on > >>local policy what to do. I believe it is a good practice and should > >>be described in the draft. > >> > >> This is what I meant to say > >> > >> On 30/07/14 11:48, "Xuxiaohu" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >Hi Wim, > >> > > >> >I just want to figure out in which scenario the host route to the > >> >VRF interface address of a remote PE router should be FIB-installed > >> >by default. If there is a scenario, I agree that your proposal of > >> >using communities is the best way. > >> > > >> >Best regards, > >> >Xiaohu > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > >> >> [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 5:37 PM > >> >> To: Xuxiaohu; [email protected] > >> >> Subject: Re: About the WG adoption of > >> >> draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00 > >> >> > >> >> 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-subne > >> >> >>> >> >t) 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 > >> >> >>> >> >-re > >> >> >>> >> >d > >> >> >>> >> >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) > >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
