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

Pedro,

Testing, certifying and deploying a new release on a legacy platform is not warranted for the benefit that traditional RT-Constrain brings. There is also the fact that it has to be deployed on lots and lots of legacy PEs.. These legacy PEs also have to be able to support the demands of traditional RT-Constrain. This level of complexity in in of itself is daunting. Beyond the fact that we have to ask vendors to provide a new release for a legacy platform there is also the reality that doing this takes cycles away from new development we would like to do to support new features and services. RT-Constrain as envisioned is a mechanism to create what is essentially multipoint-multipoint multicast trees or better put a directed graph that contains leafs and nodes for a given VPN. This approach assumes that VPN distribution is "localized" and attempts to reduce the resources needed for a given BGP topology. In my experience this assumption has not proved to be correct. That being said RT-Constrain is quite useful for reducing the amount of state a leaf ( PE ) needs to process when a new VRF is added, soft refresh is performed or there is PE reboot. So what we need is a mechanism to solve that problem without the overhead as detailed above.. Legacy RT provides a simple mechanism to deploy a mechanism that protects the legacy PE from having to process large amounts of routing state.. It is also extensible and may act as a traditional RT-Constrain leaf.

So, without divulging our plans.. Hypothetically Legacy RT-Constrain can be deployed in an incremental fashion using existing machinery on the legacy PEs and a new release on the RRs. This is quite attractive.. 

So to address your comment directly it is much harder to certify/test/deploy a new release on possibly thousands of legacy PEs instead of 10s of RRs.. Configuration can be done in an incremental fashion for the problem we face which is protecting legacy PEs.

Thanks,
	Jim Uttaro

-----Original Message-----
From: idr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Marques
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:19 PM
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