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

["Tony Li" <[e-mail]>]

 



I completely agree with you. By creating overlays I propose to do exactly
what you are saying: constrain the topology only to the interested parties.
This puts away the scalability concerns but raises the question how bad it
is in terms of configuration effort, specifically, how difficult it is to
add a new PE (a member of a subset of VPNs). I know that BGP configuration
is not exactly automatic either. So how big is the difference in the
configuration efforts? 
I know for a fact that some L1 network operators are interested in L1 VPN
application but reluctant to deploy BGP. They do deploy for quite some time
already GMPLS based control plane with OSPF-TE. Why in your opinion the
multi-instance OSPF solution will not be acceptible for them? 
 

Providers are disinclined to have any configuration that scales linearly
with the number of VPNs.  The higher the complexity of the per-VPN
configuration, the higher the work multiplier.
 
Of course, if you really want to advocate building static tunnels for VPNs,
one has to wonder why PE's and P's are involved at all.  Push the VPN
configuration to the CPE and leave the centralized boxes out of the equation
entirely.
 
Tony