Early Review of draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-02
review-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-02-rtgdir-early-bonica-2015-11-04-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-virtual-subnet-02
Reviewer: Ron Bonica
Review Date: Oct 30, 2015
IETF LC End Date:
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:

This draft describes an L3VPN configuration that supports host mobility. The
configuration is described as follows:

- VPN A contains two sites. Site 1 is connected to PE 1 and Site 2 is connected
to PE2 - Site 1 and Site 2 each contain a subnetwork. In both sites, the is
numbered 192.0.2.0/24 - Each subnetwork contains several uniquely numbered
hosts - Each PE advertises a /32 for each host - Each PE runs proxy ARP

Given this configuration, hosts can be moved from Site 1 to Site 2 without much
effort. The configuration described above will clearly work, without any
changes to protocols.

I can imagine several variations on the configuration described above. These
would also work.

I wonder if the IETF wants to:

- endorse this configuration over others
- document the other configurations, also
- document none of them, leaving the exercise to operator groups or individual
operators

Since the authors have put considerable work into this draft, and the bar for
publication as INFORMATIONAL is low, we might as well go ahead and publish this
draft. However, in the long term, the IETF probably doesn't want to document
configurations and deployment strategies.

Regards
Ron Bonica