Hi Lou. Well, if you want to go that way, I do not believe the lack of use is a suitable argument: I could state the same about the current use of IGP for autodiscovery... We are building the L1VPN solution, so we cannot afford to limit to current use only, or else we would still be stuck with NMSes only. ;-)
Julien -----Original Message----- From: Lou Berger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] > > > > 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
