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

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Marques [mailto:pedro.r.marques@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 2:47 PM
To: Arjun Sreekantiah (asreekan)
Cc: John Scudder; idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-l3vpn-legacy-rtc-00 as IDR WG document?

>Arjun,
>Do you believe that the provisioning system support necessary to
>support the PE functionality defined in this draft can be
>"accomplished in a quick manner" ?

Pedro,
I would believe this would be less intensive to develop than the software qualification and upgrade.
It would be good to give customers the choice to adopt either approach in any event.

What we see in SP deployments today is that the RR scale is increasing rapidly and this solution will help prolong the life of legacy PE hardware until they are ready for the upgrade, by reducing the scale of routes the legacy PE deals with in its RR peering.

Arjun

Software qualification and updates are indeed a very slow process. The
only process i'm aware of that in practice tends to prove even slower
is to develop new functionality in provisioning systems and change
operational procedures in order to support something like what is
proposed here. Thus my deep skepticism on the value of the WG adopting
this as a work item.

  Pedro.

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Arjun Sreekantiah (asreekan)
<asreekan@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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
>