IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Pedro Marques <pedro.r.marques@gmail.com> Wed, 16 November 2011 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <pedro.r.marques@gmail.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 D17EF21F91CC for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:47:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.97
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.629, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 rH9dIKz7r2En for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D3821F916A for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:47:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iaeo4 with SMTP id o4so1551811iae.31 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:47:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bwKyTNk8/9yzttJJkesFU/O3IQraeyLit5yE8EBCbGE=; b=gHhYwlkMPmW8HA3rHN1iZUkB74PKauzyTBYBP8xt6Lff0HJ/+enpty9oqwYxKk5xre qCefHEmjSo+kMRfM8JRSOmvGeoOUw/oxL/jC4gmRpThnCGKU5ARMAEbViX36xKqemopv UYrH+rG4N9PJZ2LTA3snbrhKfoJ+WkxuvZpEY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.3.194 with SMTP id 2mr563001ibo.68.1321483639598; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.12.2 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:47:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <96327EF53EF71A48806DE2DFC034D57F0FF739C2@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com>
References: <B04EDD60-8998-4085-97CC-885A65AA47BA@juniper.net> <CAMXVrt55AJ2b80_kTBQUJ1ZCo6ewm_NMfmhwUxH48kktLTTi6w@mail.gmail.com> <96327EF53EF71A48806DE2DFC034D57F0FF739C2@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:47:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMXVrt4Mj4eQArDm+vxKZdphv9hJhJTetZt2_-5biqoVw3ymDg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pedro Marques <pedro.r.marques@gmail.com>
To: "Arjun Sreekantiah (asreekan)" <asreekan@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 22:47:20 -0000

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" ?

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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email