Subject: Request WG adopt polling//RE: About the WG adoption of draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction-00

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 02:46:22 +0000

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-masked]
> 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)