Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

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.
> 
>