>
> o) time - depending on need's importance vs urgency, if dynamic PTI
> tables population is to be there in a couple of month, or in
> a couple of
> years (would like to point out that understimating the time
> it may take
> to convince l1/trans networks to make use of BGP may be impacting)
>
I think I understand the timing issue, but what is the specific
'problem' with BGP in relation to L1 transport network? (with BGP being
used for the purpose of discovery)
> o) cost - can be seen both ways is there a need to have a single
> protocol for LxVPN (x = 1, 2, 3) or is there a need to have a single
> protocol for L1/TE operations ? so it depends whether operators are
> looking for integrating their TE operations (including VPN or not) or
> VPN operations (including TE or not);
>
Possibly both .. the same/similar protocols for VPN (L1,2,3..) and for
TE (L1,2,3..). I'm not the same protocols for VPN and TE is that
obvious, the applications are very different.
> o) perf - concerning the protocol perf. we're discussing path
> vector vs
> link-state protocol so impact/properties are different by
> nature but TE
> processing overhead/impact would be worth investigated (note
> that this
> depends on the problem statement e.g. what would be the impact of
> progressively incorporating TE specific mechanisms for
> L1(VPN) into BGP
> if such need is identifed ?)
>
How is L1VPN discovery related to TE (path computation?) these seem not
related to me.
If multiple solutions for L1VPN discovery are to be described within the
IETF, I agree with Julien that not all of them necessarily need to be
made standard.
cheers,
Eduard
> MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN wrote:
>
> > 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
