Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

Yes, all of the above.

Dino

On Oct 13, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Ron Bonica wrote:

> Dino,
>
> When you say "this service", do you refer to the L3VPN unicast  
> service,
> the L3VPN multicast service, or an L3VPN service that includes both
> unicast and multicast? Or all of the above?
>
>                              Ron
>
>
> Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>