Hi Martin, We have just implemented RFC7814 a couple of months before in response to the demands of some of our customers, and those customers have deployed this L3-based overlay technology within their hyper-scale cloud data center network environment recently. We are planning to implement draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction in the next step.
I have just noticed the following statement from (https://www.ravellosystems.com/blog/cloud-networking-layer-2-access-amazon-ec2/): "... All major clouds, including Amazon EC2, Amazon VPC, Google Compute Engine and Microsoft Azure, allow only unicast datagrams with IP payloads. Broadcast datagrams and non-IP payloads are not allowed (with very limited exceptions to make parts of the essential ARP and DHCP protocols work). " IMHO, when the L3 overlay technology is more widely deployed in hyper-scale data centers, the on-demand FIB installation mechanism as described in draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction would become significantly important to the operators of those hyper-scale data centers . Once this mechanism becomes an IETF standard, those operators would ask their vendors to implement it. In fact, this is the case of our implementation of RFC7814. Hence, I strongly suggest to move this to IESG. BTW, since it has become a fact that various data plane encapsulation schemes could be used for the L3VPN solution, hence I wonder whether the implementation of L3 Conversational Learning of DFA as described on page 36 of (http://www.valleytalk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ciscoDFA.pdf) could be looked as an existing implementation:) Best regards, Xiaohu > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Martin Vigoureux > 发送时间: 2016年10月11日 23:01 > 收件人: BESS > 主题: [bess] Lack of implementation for > draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction - submit to IESG? > > WG, > > we have recently LCed draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction and there > was > sufficient support to move forward. However we haven't received any input on > existing implementations. > > As per [1] we are thus asking the WG whether we should nevertheless move this > to IESG or wait until implementations exist. > > Please respond. Thank you. > > > M&T > > [1]: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
