draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 13 May 2006 18:54 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FezG2-0004r9-92 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 14:54:30 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FezG1-0005yu-Vl for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 14:54:30 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Fez90-000KCq-S2 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 13 May 2006 18:47:14 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from [80.68.34.48] (helo=mail1.noc.data.net.uk) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <adrian@olddog.co.uk>) id 1Fez8i-000KBh-GL for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 18:46:56 +0000
Received: from 57-99.dsl.data.net.uk ([80.68.57.99] helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by mail1.noc.data.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 1Fez91-0005Uh-00 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 13 May 2006 19:47:15 +0100
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([217.158.132.10] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 13 May 2006 19:46:54 +0100
Message-ID: <00e401c676bc$fa61f210$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ospf@ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: 'Jean Philippe Vasseur' <jvasseur@cisco.com>, takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp, Hamid Ould-Brahim <hbrahim@nortel.com>
Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt
Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:25:48 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2006 18:46:55.0013 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B207550:01C676BD]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Hi, There is a draft in CCAMP that I want to bounce off the OSPF working group. draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt uses the new opaque LSA defined in draft-ietf-ospf-cap-08.txt in order to carry information about "mesh groups". Members of mesh groups would be connected together by tunnels to provide a sub-mesh across the network. There are many applicabilities of this feature, but it is wanted in CCAMP to allow the construction of a mesh of MPLS-TE tunnels between a set of MPLS label switching routers (LSRs) within the network. This set might be a sub-set of the PEs, or might be a sub-set of the P-routers used to build a hierarchical network. The management of the mesh membership information is not the responsibility of the IGP. Rather, this is opaque information that is delivered to an application. Thus, SPF is acting as a transport for routing-related information. Any router may be a member of more than one mesh group, and many routers might not be in any mesh group (consider the PE mesh case where all P-routers are not in the group). My questions to you: 1. Is it a concern that P-routers are being used to store and forward opaque information only needed by a small subset of the routers in the network? 2. Is there a scaling concern that there is no control on the number of mesh groups that may exist, nor the number of mesh groups to which any router can belong? Context: This question arises in the context of draft-bryskin-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-01.txt that is being discussed in the L1VPN working group. This I-D proposes to use the IGPs (specifically OSPF) to distribute information about which VPNs can be accessed through the PEs (not general VPN membership or reachability information, but just a list of VPN IDs and the link I-Ds that are used to reach them). Loud voices have been raised in L1VPN about the scalability and appropriateness of such an idea, and since it seems to be very similar to automesh, I want to see whether you all think there is a problem with automesh. many thanks, Adrian
- draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Adrian Farrel
- Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Kireeti Kompella
- Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Igor Bryskin
- Re: [OSPF] draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Acee Lindem