IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-l3vpn-legacy-rtc-00 as IDR WG document?

"Arjun Sreekantiah (asreekan)" <asreekan@cisco.com> Wed, 16 November 2011 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <asreekan@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3FA1F0C45 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:08:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0+M71UjSTRD6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:08:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37E21F0C3C for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:08:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=asreekan@cisco.com; l=1948; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1321474116; x=1322683716; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=U09hdk6C43JC8XwgJ2aOA2RvOdITbBDjh/P+S50Gk0U=; b=ZIVjjAujURvq0qPxhiruC+C9oRQh9sZyj5jDdaS6MZ4GTXNXJhAabPPl PBX4/ulQjFrQQf6/l/NthR2RMcaVeZOEEUSW4uDb7VZyf0tlvKZ34dta0 hzDWSFru1MwFXZsG7JtTaF3dswPoZtGt4u+O7QMW9TqcDc3e7iPsSUlPK c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsAAJEXxE6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDmXWNJIJqgQWBcgEBAQQBAQEPAR0+CwwEAgEIEQQBAQEKBhcBBgEmHwkIAQEEARIIEweHaJo9AZ5oBIk0YwSHYzGRZIxZ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,522,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="14695899"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2011 20:08:35 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAGK8ZGT015430; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:08:35 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.112]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:08:35 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:08:34 -0800
Message-ID: <96327EF53EF71A48806DE2DFC034D57F0FF739C2@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMXVrt55AJ2b80_kTBQUJ1ZCo6ewm_NMfmhwUxH48kktLTTi6w@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Adoption of draft-l3vpn-legacy-rtc-00 as IDR WG document?
Thread-Index: Acykg9vqMf8xPSwHR7q/ey4rrPv+VAAE6Fig
References: <B04EDD60-8998-4085-97CC-885A65AA47BA@juniper.net> <CAMXVrt55AJ2b80_kTBQUJ1ZCo6ewm_NMfmhwUxH48kktLTTi6w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Arjun Sreekantiah (asreekan)" <asreekan@cisco.com>
To: Pedro Marques <pedro.r.marques@gmail.com>, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2011 20:08:35.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[859C4940:01CCA49B]
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-l3vpn-legacy-rtc-00 as IDR WG document?
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:08:40 -0000

Pedro,
We have heard otherwise from many of our customers looking to deploy RT-constrain.  Upgrade of all legacy PEs to support RT-constrain is not something that can be accomplished in a quick manner, this is mostly done in a incremental fashion over a long period of time. A PE upgrade can be a time consuming and elaborate process for many of the customers and the below would provide a mechanism to derive benefits on RT-constrain in the interim.

I do not think the legacy PE solution is adding a great deal of complexity. Yes, configuration steps are needed on the legacy PE to specify RT membership information, we expect this can be automated through the use of scripting tools to also specify legacy PE RTs when provisioning the VPNs.

Thanks
Arjun

-----Original Message-----
From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Marques
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:19 AM
To: John Scudder
Cc: idr@ietf.org List
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-l3vpn-legacy-rtc-00 as IDR WG document?

-1

I believe that the "legacy" is now the fact that rt-constraint is
supported by the most common implementations.

The proposed procedures for legacy PEs have a level of complexity that
seems significantly higher than qualifying a new software release.

  Pedro.


On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:01 AM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> We have received a request from the authors to adopt draft-l3vpn-legacy-rtc-00 as an IDR WG document.  Please send your comments to the list.  The deadline for comments is December 5, 2011 at noon EST.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --John
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email