IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Sun, 12 October 2008 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: l3vpn-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-l3vpn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA103A68FE; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 06:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E953A68FE for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 06:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Et8sI5Y9rn6 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 06:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CF33A68C3 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 06:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7783125A0619; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:23:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at www.lucidvision.com
Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uMeeuRDWxlNg; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:23:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A4E25A0609; Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:23:09 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3EEE9D9C-4071-4CF0-895B-92998E07AF21@lucidvision.com>
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9081B578-BA39-4DB9-AAC7-B0A5D02C113D@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:23:07 -0400
References: <51661468CBD1354294533DA79E85955A605B97@XCH-SW-5V2.sw.nos.boeing.com> <9081B578-BA39-4DB9-AAC7-B0A5D02C113D@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
Cc: rcallon@juniper.net, yakov@juniper.net, "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>, l3vpn@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/l3vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org

	Dino,

	If you saying that all L3 VPN deployments are not profitable because  
of what you
feel is a bad protocol design, then I think you are confused.  I know  
of at least one
that does pretty well and does so on a pretty massive scale. :P

	--Tom

	

> It should have been clear. And if it is was not, then you can't even  
> come close to claiming success.
>
> Dino
>
> On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Drake, John E wrote:
>
>> And your point is?
>>
>> John Drake
>> Boeing Satellite Systems
>> 2260 East Imperial Highway MC W-S05-P208
>> El Segundo, CA 90245
>> john.e.drake2@boeing.com
>> (412) 370-3108
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
>> To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
>> Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>; l3vpn@ietf.org  
>> <l3vpn@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Fri Oct 10 16:35:11 2008
>> Subject: Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
>>
>> Define success Yakov?
>>
>> It is not at all clear, and has never been proved to me this service
>> is *profitable*. It may be generating revenue but the cost of running
>> the service must be considered as well.
>>
>> Dino
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>>
>>> Prasanna,
>>>
>>>> I vote NO.
>>>>
>>>> Being in AT&T Advanced Tier support group and having supported the
>>>> MVPN
>>>> core for the last 2 years, I can clearly say that we need a  
>>>> solution
>>>> such as PIM-BiDir that can reduce the number of multicast states in
>>>> the
>>>> PEs to be able to scale the Groups X Sources x OILs explosion for  
>>>> our
>>>> very large Enterprise customers.   We definitely do not want to
>>>> tweak a
>>>> crucial protocol like BGP of which our scale is 2 Million VPNV4
>>>> routes
>>>> in the US alone.
>>>
>>> On the subject of "we definitely do not want to tweak", I'd like
>>> to remind you that during the early days of 2547 VPNs some of its
>>> opponents were saying that they are against 2547 VPNs because they
>>> do not want to "tweak" such a crucial protocol as BGP to carry VPNv4
>>> routes.
>>>
>>> Today AT&T has "2 million VPNv4 routes in the US alone" all carried
>>> in BGP, and a successful 2547 VPN service. None of this would be
>>> possible if we would not tweak BGP.
>>>
>>> Yakov.
>>
>
>

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status