Hi Igor. I am glad to see L1VPN discussions are back on the air. :-)
Please, see below. -----Original Message----- From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Julien, Thanks for the comments. Please, see in-line. Igoe ----- Original Message ----- From: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [JM] OK, but BGP is already deployed for this over some networks other than L1. Autodiscovery is not L1 specific and I do not see the need to introduce too specific mecanims when it is not necessary to be so specific. As soon as we have started to deploy a whole IETF artillery (IP + LMP + OSPF/IS-IS + RSVP-TE + ...) to introduce a CP into transport networks, I feel that we should use already well known bricks too build the wall, and avoid to fill gaps with (ad-hoc) half bricks. Moreover, I believe that multi-AS is a key feature to support. 2) IGP solution facilitates easier integration with TE, which is very important for GMPLS based control plane [JM] I must concede this. 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. [JM] I agree with the scenario, but this introduces another issue which is migration, and that is not the easiest part. Furthermore, we are not in the position where we think about extending IGPs until a new solutions shows up: BGP already exsits, and the draft was ready even before. Cheers, Julien 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
