Hi,
In a previous message, I said...
There is not clear consensus yet about
draft-bryskin-l1vpn-ospf-auto-discovery-01.txt.
Although the chairs think that this draft is very readable
and clear, it has changed quite a lot since the previous
revision, and it was clear that some people had not yet had a
chance to read and digest.
Additionally, the chairs polled the OSPF WG
chairs who have some concerns that they would like to discuss
We note that the meeting in Dallas was clear that theri should not
be a beauty contest between these I-Ds, but that both should be
allowed to proceed leaving the choice to develop as the I-Ds
proceed based on implementaiton and deployment.
What we propose for this draft is as follows:
- people need to read the latest version
I hope that some more of you have had a chance to look at this draft by now.
- the chairs will summarise the issues that have been raised (including
from the OSPF chairs)
That is the purpose of this email.
- we can discuss the issues on the list
We will aim to make a more firm decision over the next 6 to 8 weeks
so that we know where we stand before Montreal
Here are the issues raised, in no particular order, with some commentary
from me. It would be good to have some discussion of these points.
1. We need to have only one solution
I'm inclined to agree with this. It is not helpful to the industry to have
two solutions in the same space. However, if there are significantly
different applicabilities this would be a justification.
My interpretation of the discussion in Dallas was that we would not make
this decision at this time.
2. The L1VPN solution should be aligned with the L2/L3VPN solutions
We need to be clear to what extent the Basic Mode discovery problem is the
same as / different from the L3VPN problem.
3. The Basic Mode discovery solution must extend to the Extended Mode
4. There are scaling concerns with using OSPF in this way.
A couple of comments on scaling.
- It is certainly safe to assume that in the near term, the size of optical
networks will not come close to the current size of OSPF packet
networks.
- OSPF used in this way will not need to handle external routes, and
this saving more than outwieghs the cost of Basic Mode discovery
- The "per-port" nature of L1VPN connectivity means that there is
no multiplexing of VPNs to a CE-PE link (athough a single PE may
give access to multiple VPNs).
5. This is 'naturally' an iBGP function not an IGP function
If there are more discussion points that I have dropped, please feel free to
raise them as well.
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
L1vpn@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
