IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)

Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com> Fri, 29 August 2008 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F723A692C for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.017
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y4nymH5P9dIj for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AA03A6819 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KZ3RH-0005Gh-CH for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:50:55 +0000
Received: from [209.191.85.55] (helo=web36804.mail.mud.yahoo.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>) id 1KZ3RD-0005Fx-89 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:50:53 +0000
Received: (qmail 41531 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Aug 2008 12:50:49 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=T7832ypo8CCQ0FncR08MqQajZoz/cUNQH1f0TQ/qT5HY2/m91bPw2T7gY8dpPCekGSoFZlhOa2jL/jp5AbxKYwFEuICy/iUQMR7JLo9OIV3EERFIytY72I9HP0D7nGxaPUV/yMq/zXUUYumZTOSCTwn7Q/i2EsCuw7vYRvylqNo=;
X-YMail-OSG: 7Hwkj3AVM1k.b_JF9I5vZ2vY2xvwVLBNTPFI4e9AxNbBsxphWYGT1Y3.2IW3wRsWfmsXwcJYXF4PvcPC.LNs.hHu6uKo8_pdPnmWScP0Xxzty8P8Oic.y3UzfoBndg--
Received: from [67.102.145.11] by web36804.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:50:49 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1042.48 YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:50:49 -0700
From: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, softwires@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1589213789-1220014249=:41469"
Message-ID: <896057.41469.qm@web36804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>

Yakov,

You said:


... And while on the subject of scaling, please keep in mind that BGP
only stores L1VPN routes on PEs that have sites of that VPN connected
to them, and on an RR if used, but *not* on any of the P routers. In
contrast, rfc5252 (OSPF for L1VPN autodiscovery) results in storing
*all VPN TE information for all the VPNs* on *all* the IGP nodes, both P
and PE. So, clearly BGP-based approach scales better than OSPF-based
approach.

Yakov.

This is not true in case of multi-instance OSPF: one can build an overlay interconnecting PEs via one or small number of Ps using IPinIP tunnels and run in this overlay an instance of OSPF specifically designated for distribution of L1VPN information. In this case the OSPF solution won't scale any worse than the BGP approach. Note. that rfc252 never said that the instance of OSPF used for flooding of the L1VPN information must be the same instance that is used for the distribution of IP-related LSAs.

Regards,
Igor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email