Hi co-chairs, We have addressed all the comments received so far in the following revision (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-01).
Major changes since the -00 version include: 1) incorporate Wim's proposal about how to install some particular remote host routes by default. 2) add a new co-author (Wim Henderickx). We co-authors believe this revision is stable enough for WG adoption. Best regards, Xiaohu (on behalf of all co-authors) > -----Original Message----- > From: Xuxiaohu > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:54 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: About the WG adoption of > draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00 > > 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)
