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

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@JUNIPER.NET> Wed, 12 November 2003 14:18 UTC

Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18489 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:18:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <10.00C42B27@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 9:19:06 -0500
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 60284702 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:19:05 -0500
Received: from 207.17.136.150 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:19:05 -0400
Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id hACEHhi36010; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 06:17:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18170.1068646663.1@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <200311121417.hACEHhi36010@merlot.juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 06:17:43 -0800
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@JUNIPER.NET>
Subject: Re: draft-eng-nalawade-ospf-tunnel-cap-00.txt
Comments: To: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@CISCO.COM>
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Nov 2003 07:09:09 +0100." <3FB1CE85.5040305@cisco.com>
Precedence: list

> 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
> implementations it will converge faster then OSPF when the number of
> your P routers is decent.
>
> I think we could debate more - and yes this draft itself solves some
> practical cases with not too big overhead for IGPs - but let's at least

Could you please enumerate these cases.

Yakov.