Re: draft-eng-nalawade-ospf-tunnel-cap-00.txt

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

Gargi,

> Robert Raszuk wrote:
> >
> > Sandy,
> >
> > > In a VPN enviroment, OSPF converges in sub-seconds while BGP in minutes,
> > > OSPF can deliver the tunnel endpoint information much faster than BGP,
> > > enabling faster traffic reachibility.
> >
> > I can't agree with this statement.
> >
> > BGP convergence intra domain - note within _single_ domain can be in
> > fact almost as fast for tunnel AFI/SAFI then for OSPF. In fact with
> > default timers in OSPF and with prioritizing tunnel AFI/SAFI first (as
> > it should be the case) I could argue that even today with most BGP
>
> I dont quite agree with - 'prioritizing... as should be the case'. We
> have debated this in the past and you know my stance. The stance of
> multiple providers I have talked to, also seems to be the same. They
> want a simple, scalable BGP which does not affect/compromise on their
> core ipv4 routing. So let's not talk about BGP here.

Don't they also want a simple scalable IGP which does not affect/compromise
on their core ipv4 routing. So, let's talk *here* about why BGP overload
is bad, while IGP overload is ok.

And wrt "BGP which does not affect/compromise on their core ipv4 routing",
isn't it *you* who wrote several internet drafts that describe mechanisms
to handle this with BGP ?

> Reality is, in most generic implementations today, there is an order of
> magnitude difference between OSPF and BGP.

Vendors who have this problem should fix the IBGP part of their "generic
implementation".

Yakov.