IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt

Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <erosen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595F921E80B0 for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.623, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 q06acJwveOUn for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D79011E8111 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=696; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1374505780; x=1375715380; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:reply-to:date:message-id; bh=sS9H7hR8M9+49XMKCDx/FFdE3PFClwDY5bX3tIKsyl4=; b=NFjy1UvW4XrXeO7kroGIe/SZTIOo+3gIcvXrrQWL0hH07oxh7Vh2KJP9 pplqUYPPhuY193YzqHCxQp7vi82azm4w8GwO6hBpJQfT4xxYgRVr4FsBQ JZqnyj1rymeNpBeuFqAIeAvFnCeQXkkNi+5xpEaicjVA2jTgTFMrKzREq w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,719,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="237861263"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2013 15:09:40 +0000
Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6MF9dCN007705 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:09:39 GMT
Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6MF9a8j027327; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:09:36 -0400
From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
To: Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-l3vpn-label-sharing-00.txt
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:46:23 -0000. <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7335C721B@nkgeml508-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:09:36 -0400
Message-ID: <27326.1374505776@erosen-linux>
Cc: erosen@cisco.com, "l3vpn@ietf.org" <l3vpn@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:09:52 -0000

As far as I can tell, your scheme only handles the case where the two egress
PEs connect to the exact same set of CEs.  If so, this applicability
restriction should be clearly stated.

In Figure 2.1, you show CE2 connected to PE3 and PE4.  Now suppose we also
have CE4 connected to PE3 and PE5.  If PE3 fails, one might want use PE4 as
a backup for CE2, while using PE5 as a backup for CE4.  Your scheme doesn't
seem to handle this.

Also, even in the case of Figure 2.1, it seems entirely possibly that one
might want PE3's primary route to CE2 to be via the directly attached
interface, while wanting PE4's primary route to CE2 to be via PE3.  Does
your scheme handle this case?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email