Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dino,

What leads you to believe that operators aren't making a profit on these
service?

                                Ron

Dino Farinacci wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>>
> 
>