Re: [Idr] IETF 73

Understood!

PF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lixia Zhang [mailto:lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU] 
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:20 PM
> To: Paul Francis
> Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Inter-Domain Routing List
> Subject: Re: [Idr] IETF 73
> 
> 
> On Nov 15, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Paul Francis wrote:
> > The sense in which they are not orthogonal is this.  IACs are only 
> > useful insofar that upstream ASes have a choice of path.  
> Of course, 
> > with BGP it often so happens that upstream ASes have 
> choices, but once 
> > any AS makes a choice, it limits the number of choices it 
> presents to 
> > its upstream.  If you have tunnels, then more choices are presented 
> > upstream, and there should therefore me more opportunities to make 
> > selections.  The mapped-bgp spec offers even more choices than the 
> > tunnel-endpoints draft.
> >
> > So basically my point is that if you are prepared to modify BGP to 
> > improve load balancing, you ought to consider the additional 
> > improvements the tunnels can afford you.
> >
> > As for the tunnel-endpoint draft being more appropriate for 
> RRG, this 
> > is feedback I'd like to get.  Narrowly viewed, the tunnel-endpoint 
> > draft is something that improves the performance of 
> (intra-domain) VA, 
> > which is already work that is being done in IDR (and was explicitly 
> > turned away by RRG).
> 
> Just my own 2 cents (with all hats off): before Dublin, the 
> VA looked to me as something that, if adopted, could be 
> deployed *right away*, so IDR seemed to me a better venue to 
> push it--this is not so much of turning VA away per se.  As I 
> mentioned to you privately, I always viewed VA as "poor man's 
> map" in map-n-encap, which can serve as step stone towards 
> incremental deployment (of solutions falling under map-n- encap).
> 
> >  Broadly viewed, the tunnel-endpoint draft has wider scope, which 
> > Raszuk pointed out, and this needs to be discussed in IDR.
> >
> > PF
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:41 AM
> >> To: Paul Francis
> >> Cc: Inter-Domain Routing List
> >> Subject: Re: [Idr] IETF 73
> >>
> >> On 12 nov 2008, at 13:16, Paul Francis wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's worth pointing out that if you convey inter-AS tunnel
> >> endponts in
> >>> BGP along the lines of
> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-idr-tunnel-00.txt
> >>> , then different ASes (or even individual routers) can select 
> >>> different paths, and so an IAC scheme can become more
> >> fine-grained.
> >>> Personally I think if we are going to look at something
> >> like IAC, we
> >>> should consider tunneling at the same time.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Both the problems that these drafts address and the solutions that 
> >> they propose look completely orthogonal to me, so I don't see how 
> >> that would be helpful.
> >>
> >> About the tunnel draft: isn't this something that could easily be 
> >> part of the RRG efforts? Standardizing this now while overlapping 
> >> working is going on in RRG may be premature.
> >>
> >> Iljitsch
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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