IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <raszuk@CISCO.COM> Wed, 12 November 2003 06:09 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 BAA09983 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:09:06 -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 <10.00C423C5@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 1:09:15 -0500
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 60240718 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:09:14 -0500
Received: from 171.68.10.87 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:09:14 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (171.68.223.138) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2003 22:12:58 -0800
Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hAC69AiN010070; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:09:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-352.cisco.com [10.21.65.96]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id ANM28285; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:09:09 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3F9E9379.3070602@redback.com> <3F9EAD95.9050101@cisco.com> <3F9EB8F2.10002@cisco.com> <20031110084404.A84355@sapphire.juniper.net> <3FAFFBEC.7090409@cisco.com> <20031111211412.Y12111@sapphire.juniper.net> <3FB1CBA8.2050608@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3FB1CE85.5040305@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 07:09:09 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@CISCO.COM>
Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/
Subject: Re: draft-eng-nalawade-ospf-tunnel-cap-00.txt
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
In-Reply-To: <3FB1CBA8.2050608@cisco.com>
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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
keep the facts right.

Thx,
R.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email