> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Joel M. > Halpern > 发送时间: 2010年6月24日 23:33 > 收件人: Christopher Morrow > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected] > 主题: Re: [GROW] IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about > IPR related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02 > > While autoconfig is not "necessary" in order to have a working VA > system, I think it (some form of autoconfig) is necessary in order to > have a deployable and operable VA system. Given that GROW is supposed > to be focussed on operability, I am not at all sure we should drop > autoconfig. > > {For context, the many concern I heard expressed at the early grow > presentations was concern that the complexity of configuration made the > system error prone and sufficient expensive, in terms of operational > cost, that it woudl cost more than it would save.)
I fully agree with Joel's concern. When you consider a real operational VA system, you would have to consider how to make the configuration task as easy as possible. For the purpose of experiment, the VP-list tool is enough. However, for a product network, is it acceptable for the network operators to configure/maintain the identical VP-list on all VA routers? Besides, to alleviate the heavy traffic pressure on the APRs, those popular prefixes for high-volume traffic should be installed into FIB by all BGP routers as normal. Is it acceptable for the network operators to configure/maintain the large volume of popular prefixes on all VA routers? With the auto-configure mechanism defined in the current VA-auto draft, the network operator just need to configure the VP-range and the pop-prefix-list on those local ASBRs which are connected to its peer ASes and transit ASes, and those ASBRs in turn will classify the e-BGP learnt routes into two types according to the configured VP-range and the pop-prefix-list: can-be-suppressed and can-not-be-suppressed, and attach the "can-suppress" tag to those can-be-suppressed prefixes when adverting them to their iBGP peers which, in turn, just need to selectively install the received routes according the "can-suppress" tag of the routes and their own roles (i.e.,. ARP or non-APR). In a word, I don't think the auto-config mechanism is optional and dispensable. Best wishes, Xiaohu > Yours, > Joel > > Christopher Morrow wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Paul Francis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As it was, I was about to ask the list if folks thought VA could move > >> towards an informational RFC, or if folks felt that more implementation > >> experience were needed. Currently we have a linux/quagga implementation > >> that does not include MPLS tunneling. I'm not sure the status of the > >> Huawei implementation, but it is not to the point where it can be tested > >> against the linux implementation. In any event, VA doesn't require > >> wire-protocol changes, and I can well imagine that only once folks start > >> trying to deploy it will we really learn what configurations work best (at > >> which point we can document that). In other words, even if we did have a > >> couple working implementations, there would be much more to learn from > >> real deployments. > >> > >> I wasn't aware of the IPR. According to the statement, it covers > >> technology in draft-ietf-grow-va-auto-01. This covers a way to simplify > >> configuration of the so-called VP-list. This approach is not mentioned in > >> either of the main drafts (draft-ietf-grow-va-02 or > >> draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-00). My personal feeling is that this approach > >> is not very critical to the operation of VA, but lacking experience I > >> could certainly be wrong. In fact, if you look at the 00 draft of > >> auto-config, you'll see that there was a second method proposed for > >> auto-config which has pros and cons relative to Huawei's approach. This > >> was dropped from the 01 version primarily so as to keep things simple...I > >> don't think any of the non-Huawei authors felt strongly about these > >> approaches one way or the other. > >> > >> Bottom line, I don't think this IPR should impinge moving the two main > >> drafts forward---first because it is optional, and second because there > >> are alternatives. There are a couple ways we could move forward: > >> > >> 1. Stick with the set of drafts we have now (the two main drafts, and the > >> optional auto-config draft with the IPR). > >> 2. Revive the second auto-config method so as to have a published > >> non-encumbered option (probably as a separate draft so that it is clear > >> what is and is not encumbered). > >> 3. Drop the auto-config draft, and continue forward with only the two > >> main drafts. > > > > my feeling is if the autoconfig isn't necessary, and is encumbered how > > about we live without it if possible :) > > (w/participant hat) > > -Chris > > > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> PF > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > >> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], > >> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > >> Date: 06/23/2010 09:46 PM > >> Subject: Re: IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's > >> Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02 > >> > >> > >> > >> Grow-folk, > >> we should probably decide whether this is a blocking issue for VA > >> progression or not... I believe the ietf stance is that IPR claims are > >> fine, if there aren't other non-encumbered options available. > >> > >> -Chris > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:31 PM, IETF Secretariat <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> Dear Lixia Zhang, Robert Raszuk, Xiaohu Xu, Dan Jen, Hitesh Ballani, > >> Paul Francis: > >>> An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "FIB > >> Suppression > >>> with Virtual Aggregation" (draft-ietf-grow-va) was submitted to the IETF > >>> Secretariat on 2010-06-23 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of > >> Intellectual > >>> Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1341/). > >> The title > >>> of the IPR disclosure is "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about > >> IPR > >>> related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02." > >>> > >>> The IETF Secretariat > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > GROW mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow > > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
