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

["Tomotaki, Luis M." <[e-mail]>]

Robert, 
Thanks for the feedback.  I agree with your statement that more than likely, many carriers that are supporting "legacy" PEs will not be able to run "new" services on these routers.  However, for most carriers, provisioning of new circuits/VRFs on these legacy PEs continue to take place.  As a carrier, we continue to work towards improving the overall experience of our customers in these legacy PEs.  

As it is the case in many carrier networks, automated provisioning tools only have visibility to PEs and not to routers on a P or RR roles.  P and RR routers are considered core infrastructure which only a few selected groups have access to for security issues.  

Luis
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 7:07 PM
To: Tomotaki, Luis M.
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] Adoption of draft-l3vpn-legacy-rtc-00 as IDR WG document?

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.