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

Hi Rob,

While I may even agree with your points reg considerations for a 
software upgrade on the PEs - which in many cases may just not be 
available due to given's vendor software release strategy - I do not 
agree that this is so hard to enhance your provisioning system to update 
the rr-group command on the RR when you are adding/deleting/modifying a 
RT on the PE given RR is serving.

And if you do that there is no need for inbound signalling like proposed 
in this draft.

Rgs,
R.

> On 16 Nov 2011, at 17:19, Pedro Marques wrote:
>
>> -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.
>
> While this if of course a valid argument, I believe that there are
> some operational constraints that make this untrue.
>
> In an ideal world, all deployed PEs would be running current
> hardware, and with software trains under active development.
> Unfortunately, this is not always the case - and hence the
> requirement is more than a software qualification to support RTC. The
> options here are migration to new hardware platforms, which comes
> with significant operational costs, or put up with some operational
> complexity to better utilise existing assets whilst allowing network
> growth elsewhere, and delay expenditure.
>
> I realise that such non-technical requirements may fall outside of
> the consideration of IETF working groups - but I feel strongly that
> there is some trade-off to be made that sacrifices some absolute
> correctness to provide technologies that allow operators to meet
> their network's commercial requirements.
>
> We should (of course) consider the extent to which such compromises
> compromise network robustness - but I can't say that I agree that
> this draft upsets the complexity/benefit balance. I would be
> interested to hear if you do.
>
> Kind regards, r.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
>