Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs
"Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com> Tue, 07 January 2014 15:14 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=0084db7cfc=hshah@ciena.com>
X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF3D1ADF2E for <scale@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:14:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QkeIu9pzHefg for <scale@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.144.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7971ADBD7 for <scale@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s07FAhkP008025; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:14:05 -0500
Received: from mdwexght02.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-29.ciena.com [63.118.36.29]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1h8kqq02jv-11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:14:04 -0500
Received: from MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.106) by MDWEXGHT02.ciena.com (10.4.140.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:14:03 -0500
Received: from ONWVEXCHHT01.ciena.com (10.128.6.16) by MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:14:03 -0500
Received: from ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com ([::1]) by ONWVEXCHHT01.ciena.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:14:02 -0500
From: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "scale@ietf.org" <scale@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:14:01 -0500
Thread-Topic: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs
Thread-Index: Ac8LlXo7rmQfRaqqT/KfoIgUYVLR3QAIx42Q
Message-ID: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC7592@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com>
References: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-20416.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--34.614200-0.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.87, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-01-07_05:2014-01-07, 2014-01-07, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1305240000 definitions=main-1401070082
Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs
X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling <scale.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/scale>, <mailto:scale-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scale/>
List-Post: <mailto:scale@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:scale-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale>, <mailto:scale-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:14:16 -0000
Hi Adrian - Silence is deafening, possibly holidays and diversion to next glittering (SDN) object.. :-) I am interested in scaling and performance requirements of VPNs in data centers as well as carrier networks. >From vendors (mine) perspective, we need to understand what the realistic expectations are. Like you, I wish as well, that some of the operators participate in this discussion so that f2f meeting in London could be more productive. Thanks, himanshu -----Original Message----- From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:46 AM To: scale@ietf.org Subject: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs My previous two emails may have been lost in the vacations. It is now a working week for most people, so let's have one more attempt to see whether there is interest in this topic. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 03 January 2014 22:21 > To: scale@ietf.org > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs in the New Year > > Sending this again in the hope of catching some people at their desks > at the start of January. > > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian > > Farrel > > Sent: 25 December 2013 21:42 > > To: scale@ietf.org > > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs at Christmas > > > > Hello Scale Mailing List, > > > > I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of activity on this list. If there is > > genuine support for the idea of a BoF to discuss scaling VPNs > > (issues, requirements, moving towards solutions) I would have expected to see more traffic. > Certainly, > > if there is no more evidence of enthusiasm to discuss this then I > > don't think > we > > will go ahead with a face-to-face meeting (i.e. a BoF) at the London IETF. > > > > I had expected to hear a chorus of complaints from operators about > > how they struggle with their deployments today, and how they want to grow them soon. > I > > thought I was going to hear from a number of operators about the VPN > > requirements of data centers. And I had expected a number of vendors > > to be wanting to talk about how they address these problems. My > > expectation had been that we would talk about different scaling > > challenges across the VPN space and > > learn what techniques could be common. > > > > But it is OK! > > If no-one has scaling concerns or if no-one wants to talk about them > > right > now, > > we can move on. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > _______________________________________________ > scale mailing list > scale@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale _______________________________________________ scale mailing list scale@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale
- [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scalin… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss sc… Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss sc… Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss sc… ramki Krishnan
- Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss sc… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss sc… Rob Shakir
- Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss sc… Rob Shakir