RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)
"Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com> Wed, 03 September 2008 12:27 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 5B85E3A69D5 for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.337
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 AFSTk2mY-j0Y for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CEA03A6BD6 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KarH5-0000BM-Kw for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:15:51 +0000
Received: from [130.76.32.69] (helo=blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>) id 1KarGv-0000AA-6Z for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:15:46 +0000
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id m83CAAlv016013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m83CA95p008712; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xch-swbh-11.sw.nos.boeing.com (xch-swbh-11.sw.nos.boeing.com [129.172.192.157]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id m83CA9TO008696; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-SW-5V2.sw.nos.boeing.com ([129.172.193.50]) by xch-swbh-11.sw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:10:09 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:10:07 -0700
Message-ID: <51661468CBD1354294533DA79E85955A010A0A84@XCH-SW-5V2.sw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <687105.49291.qm@web36803.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)
Thread-Index: AckNSCE84MXQovNERMinrbcM/paYfQAdVQGg
References: <687105.49291.qm@web36803.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
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
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Sep 2008 12:10:09.0366 (UTC) FILETIME=[027FFF60:01C90DBE]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>
Igor, Actually, I am not sure that you do understand what I wrote, because you are providing examples of the redundancy that I specified - every PE router needs to have connectivity to two other routers in the IGP instance. Thanks, John >-----Original Message----- >From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com] >Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:06 PM >To: Drake, John E; 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) > >Hi John, > >I understand what you are saying and disagree. The overlay I >am talking about logically is a separate network and as any >network it should be sufficiently redundant to function. There >is a number of ways how you can address the redundancy >concerns. Look at the examples below: > >a) interconnect all VPN-aware PEs into a single ring: >PE=======PE > || || >PE PE >|| || >PE PE >|| || >... .... >PE=======PE > >b) connect each PE to two interconnected Ps > >PE P PE > || >PE || PE > || >PE || PE > || >... || .... >PE P PE > > >Note that tunnels can traverse any number of VPN-unaware Ps and PEs. > >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: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 2:24:26 PM >Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG >(2nd question) > >Igor, > >Several years ago when OSPF was first proposed as an >autodiscovery mechanism for L1VPNs, you were told that it was >a bad idea due to its scaling properties and impact on the IGP. > >You are now tacitly agreeing with those who told you it was a bad idea. > >For your suggested approach to work with sufficient >redundancy, the topology of the overlay needs to be configured >such that every selected P router is connected to at least two >other selected P routers and every PE router needs to be >connected to at least two selected P routers. > >When you are done with this configuration, you are left with a >situation in which *every* PE and selected P router will have >*all* L1VPN routes. > >Thanks, > >John > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com] >>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:10 PM >>To: Drake, John E; 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) >> >>Are you calling me silly? Are you coming to Minneapolis? :=) >> >>Seriously, what is wrong in your opinion with this approach? >>Many people are talking about multi-instance IGPs. What they have in >>mind is improving the IGP scalability: >>a) by removing non-IP advertisements from the instance of IGP that >>manages IP routing/forwarding tables into separate IGP instance(s); >>b) by distributing non-IP information only to and via >inerested parties >>leaving the bulk of Ps out of the process. >> >>In my opinion this is exactly what is needed for the OSPF-based L1VPN >>application. >> >>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 2:31:36 PM >>Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd >>question) >> >>So you are proposing an OSPF route reflector? At what point does the >>silliness stop? >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com] >>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:29 AM >>>To: Drake, John E; 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) >>> >>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > >
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin
- RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Drake, John E
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin
- RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Drake, John E
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin
- RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Drake, John E
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin
- RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Drake, John E
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Yakov Rekhter
- RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Drake, John E
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin
- RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Drake, John E
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Yakov Rekhter
- RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Tony Li
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Lou Berger
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin
- RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Tony Li
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Lou Berger
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwire… Igor Bryskin