Re: [scale] new updated slides

[Pedro Roque Marques <[e-mail]>]

Loa,
Thank you for the clarification. Please see inline.

On Dec 5, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Pedro,
> 
> I'd like to make one or to things clear when it comes to the listed
> slides
> 
> - we kind of inherited the draft list, and have chosen to be careful
>  removing drafts without being very sure that it does not belong in
>  the list

I suspect that i'm not the only one that is going to have an intuitive negative reaction to frame label allocation policy and architecture discussions as "scale". I believe you saw similar comments from others in the list.
I'd strongly recommend you to consider removing these. I believe that there is room for additional discussion when it comes to label allocation techniques. But "scale" wouldn't be typically seen as a "backdoor" attempt and get a default negative reaction.

> - I've have not read the info around the list of drafts as "this is the
>  drafts that will give us the solution of the MPLS VPN Scaling Problem"
>  I've seen i more like "these drafts might contain information that is
>  relevant when we try to figure out what the critical scaling issues
>  are"; i.e. the draft does not have to be "about scaling", but it might
>  have "an impact on scaling"!

My input would be to try to figure our whether you see this as an ops area effort: deployment best practices, document tradeoffs. Or as a protocol development effort. In my view the later already has its appropriate forums which have been successfully updating the protocols in order to improve issues such as usability and scalability. As an example the L3VPN WG has developed a fair amount of work in the area of limiting the scope of route advertisements in large scale networks (RFC 4684 and other efforts).

> - having said that I do not claim that this "the list", only that it is
>  a zero order approximation; if we find it useful let us refine the
>  list, if not let us start to write a problem statement and see if
>  some/all/more drafts can be used as references.

From your slides the problem statement is really unclear. In fact it is unclear as to whether there is a problem to be solved.

> 
> The discussin on whether central allocation (in all cases) of labels are
> not closed for me.

I believe we should be open minded. Although it would be great to have in mind previous iterations of the same discussion and have a bit of collective memory. But there are existing forums to have that discussion. Unless of course you can make a compelling argument that: a) this is a issue sufficiently independent of the MPLS, L3VPN and L2VPN protocol developement and b) that the existing forums are not working.

> Even if I believe I no the answer I willing to listen
> some more.
> 
> /Loa