Hi, I just spoke to the OSPF WG chairs and pointed out to the problem of advertising of AS-scope opaque LSAs (the one that was discussed on L1VPN WG). The chairs have agreed that this is an obvious flaw in the protocol which needs to be fixed. They even proposed on the spt a very simple solution how to fix the problem with zero changes on ABRs required. We agreed to work together and present a draft on the next IETF.
This would enable to remove the validation part from the OSPF based L1VPN auto-discovery draft and make the solution ridicuosly simple. Igor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Igor Bryskin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [L1vpn] Autodiscovery Protocol > Julien, > > Thanks for the comments. Please, see in-line. > > Igoe > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:35 AM > Subject: [L1vpn] Autodiscovery Protocol > > > Hi all. > > Allow me to get back to the issue raised during the L1VPN meeting: the > autodiscovery protocol. > > I think it is clear for everyone that BGP really fits the job. Thus I do not > see why we would need to add an IGP to do less things. Lots of drawbacks > were even pinpointed during the meeting: more flooding, less scalability, no > AS crossing, less flexibility (full mesh)... but no real advantage. > > IB>> Just a couple. 1) No need for BGP. Untill now operators of L1 layer > networks don't seem to find any use for BGP, and unlikely to deploy BGP for > the purpose of one application some time soon 2) IGP solution facilitates > easier integration with TE, which is very important for GMPLS based control > plane > > What is more, as Kireeti said, starting with 2 different solutions is likely > to bring more problems than solve any. Since something needs to be added, I > am not sure that extending an IGP (or both if we do not want to preclude any > option...) will be easier/quicker than using BGP. > > IB>> As was pointed out on the meeting, this is not an argument of a sort > RSVP-TE vs CR-LDP. The architecture (basic mode) clearly assumes the > protocol independence of L1VPN auto-discovey mechanism. The OSPF extensions > are very simple, the application is required now and based on OSPF could be > delivered quickly. What happens if the BGP solution proves to be a better > one (as it happened in the past) ? > Than the OSPF solution could be simply thrown away and replaced by the BGP > one. > > Igor > > And if, despite this, some consider it as a 1st step, then I think we do > not need to make it a standard. > > So I am in favour of BGP autodiscovery, but BGP only. > > Best regards, > > Julien > > _______________________________________________ > L1vpn mailing list > L1vpn@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn > > > _______________________________________________ > L1vpn mailing list > L1vpn@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn > _______________________________________________ L1vpn mailing list L1vpn@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
