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 18:38 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 701673A6A65 for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.286
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.392, 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 luRLbnllZTGv for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8853A6A11 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KZ8iC-000K9C-PS for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:28:44 +0000
Received: from [209.191.85.58] (helo=web36807.mail.mud.yahoo.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>) id 1KZ8i8-000K8D-BZ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:28:42 +0000
Received: (qmail 98471 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Aug 2008 18:28:38 -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=0c6uKtyovkTjJzFxT0xo9yi+DNSE56b+FyJwwwXi/z80dGc0I+pCnamJNgylkc49zR9demarP+evLc4mXWRtyDmoxkH3Z1t9/KKgCKJhHMlkrgK08lA2/Xo49LLI1Mh+3lIDtRDV35rgHcFB/jHAoY7YfnREUWzmZY+8O00CjhQ=;
X-YMail-OSG: 2WLf_uIVM1mfALQa4LtNNwz0h8JGuPxLz_BiXel2KxGxRg94Z89jvVoI3zPHrE5sruoTg9jkLVVWe1zcuv8S0Ch6FOidEQDiIdFnZm8yW2OYcE5CFHnkRPy0dMf8milHaEp6MIf9wKeUOhIfAtc-
Received: from [67.102.145.11] by web36807.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:28:38 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1042.48 YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:28:38 -0700
From: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)
To: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>, 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="0-763070498-1220034518=:96489"
Message-ID: <826937.96489.qm@web36807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>

Hi John,

No, not really. When you add a PE you configure local interfaces, local VPN port mappings, stuff like that. While doing this you will also configure an IPinIP tunnel to one of your spoke Ps and enable L1VPN OSPF instance on the tunnel. Once you did that the local VPN information will be flooded accross the overlay, likewise, the new PE will get all the necessary information from other PEs.

Cheers,
Igor



----- Original Message ----
From: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>
To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>; 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
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:20:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)

Igor,

Doesn't this defeat auto-discovery?  I.e., how is a new PE added to a
given L1VPN?

Thanks,

John 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com] 
>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:51 AM
>To: Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger
>Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; 
>softwires@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG 
>(2nd question)
>
>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