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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Luis,

> - We need support for the legacy PE draft since a large number of PEs
> in many service provider networks will never be able to support RFC
> 4684 since the code upgrade of these legacy PEs is not an option due
> to multiple reasons such as end-of-life scenarios or costly hardware
> upgrades.

Putting legacy RTC topic aside which is at the end of the day just an 
optimization it seems that your legacy PEs will also never be able to be 
upgraded with any other new functionality you or IETF may be coming with.

Therefor you will not be able to run any new services on those PEs. And 
this is all because vendor XYZ decided to abandon the software 
development on a branch your and "many service providers" are using in 
production.

That seems to me like much bigger issue that effectively this is your PE 
vendor to get to decide what services you are to offer on your PEs.

> - As a representative of a large service provider, our
> comment is that our provisioning systems are highly automated and
> should easily be able to make the provisioning changes needed to
> specify RT membership information on the legacy PEs during the VRF
> configuration with no additional risk to our customer traffic. - The
> VPNV4/VPNV6 RRs in our network are considered core infrastructure
> devices that should NOT be exposed to daily provisioning activity
> that the manual addition of filters to the core RR would require.

If the provisioning is "highly automated" I fail to see why provisioning 
in "core infrastructure" would have to be a manual process.

Best,
R.