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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 17 November 2011 02:23 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 01EAF1F0CA6 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:23:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.369, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 IJ32ZvpUqprx for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE7E1F0C54 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 4755 invoked by uid 399); 17 Nov 2011 02:23:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?130.129.19.9?) (130.129.19.9) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTP; 17 Nov 2011 02:23:49 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 130.129.19.9
Message-ID: <4EC47036.603@raszuk.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:23:50 +0100
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Arjun Sreekantiah (asreekan)" <asreekan@cisco.com>
References: <B04EDD60-8998-4085-97CC-885A65AA47BA@juniper.net><CAMXVrt55AJ2b80_kTBQUJ1ZCo6ewm_NMfmhwUxH48kktLTTi6w@mail.gmail.com><B383DA80-7CF1-453A-AEDA-8D3F33A40E5B@rob.sh> <4EC440CA.9070904@raszuk.net> <96327EF53EF71A48806DE2DFC034D57F0FF73B13@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <96327EF53EF71A48806DE2DFC034D57F0FF73B13@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:23:55 -0000

Hi Arjun,

> Robert,
 >
> This would mean that every time you have to update the RT configuration
> on the PE, you would also have to update  corresponding RT list
> (rr-group) config on all RRs the PE is peering with.

Yes- on all two RRs in 99 % of VPNv4/v6 deployments.

> Thus the RT
> configuration change in no longer restricted to the PE alone and would
> not scale very well as the number of PEs on which you need to make the
> change increases.

I do not know what does not scale.

In a decent network size provisioning is automated anyway so operator 
would have a RT modification template then just perform single 
modification to RT anyway.

And it is just the template which would need to be one time enhanced to 
accommodate such additional RT insertion on the peering RRs given PE is 
a client of. I do not know why this would be difficult.

Best regards,
R.