I wasn't at the meeting, so my apologies for possibly going over topics
that have been discussed already ...
> >
> >>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)
>
> afaik, there is no large "install base" as for IP/MPLS (L3VPN)
>
Okay, but debatable. there is probably no large base of anything in this
area.
> >>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.
>
> because there is a need to have some characterization of the
> CE-PE links
> (in part. if dual homing like discussed during last L1VPN is
> going to be
> part of the ref.architecture)
>
> >>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.
>
> this has been discussed during ietf63 also, having CPI-PPI
> information
> delivers a set of reachable end-points only but the CE-PE
> links have TE
> attributes like any other links that are to be taken into
> account by the
> ingress PE for correctly route the request and reach (one out of the
> possible) egress PE
>
I understand, is the idea to combine both in the auto-discovery
mechanism?
cheers,
Eduard
>
_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
L1vpn@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
