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

[Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]>
To: Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>; Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]>
Cc: Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>; Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
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:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:29 AM
>To: Drake, John E; Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger
>Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; [e-mail]; 
>[e-mail]
>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" <[e-mail]>
>To: Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>; Yakov Rekhter 
><[e-mail]>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]>
>Cc: Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>; Adrian Farrel 
><[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>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:[e-mail]]
>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:51 AM
>>To: Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger
>>Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; [e-mail]; 
>>[e-mail]
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>