Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 07 January 2014 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 DD1D41ADF72 for <scale@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:34:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 VsdFymcl8Lde for <scale@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820301ADFDC for <scale@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:34:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07GYX7O017215; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:34:33 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (14.21.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.21.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07GYV5N017177 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:34:32 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Shah, Himanshu'" <hshah@ciena.com>
References: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC7592@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC75AB@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com>
In-Reply-To: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC75AB@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:34:34 -0000
Message-ID: <016901cf0bc6$5a5da370$0f18ea50$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEn7znljCDS1dWZKJGawOcA3dBUcgJrDpo6Ajsm35SbonsxMA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: No
Cc: scale@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs
X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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 16:34:55 -0000

Hi Himanshu,

You may be right. The list shows "only" 75 subscribers, but I figure that the
list was advertised well enough when created so that those who are concerned did
sign up (you found it :-).

I think as you and Ramki indicated, a number of us would be interested in
hearing what operators would like to achieve as raw numbers in DC VPNs, but to
date not only do we not have those numbers, we don't have an idea whether they
would create any issues. Perhaps these are conversations that operators prefer
to have with their vendors and the scaling issues are more related to
implementations than to protocols.

My conclusion (at the moment) is that the I-Ds that currently hint at scaling
issues for VPNs are providing solutions for speculative problems, or (worse)
trying to find justifications for protocol extensions without real cause.

We'll keep stirring, but I am not holding my breath!

Adrian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com]
> Sent: 07 January 2014 15:17
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; scale@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs
> 
> Just thinking - it might be possible that not enough people have signed in to
this
> mailing list.
> Would it be worth sending your email to other mailing lists such as - mpls,
PWE3,
> L2VPN and L3VPN,
> before considering to turn the lights off?
> 
> Thanks,
> Himanshu
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:14 AM
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; scale@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs
> 
> 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 mailing list
> scale@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale