Given the reality of (lack of) use of BGP in L1/transport networks, I disagree.
I also think Yakov made an excellent point as to progressing both and letting the market decide.
Lou At 12:29 PM 3/23/2006, Drake, John E wrote:
I agree with this. > -----Original Message----- > From: MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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. > > 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. 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
