Hi Acee,
Thanks for the response, see below.
At 12:22 PM 5/10/2006, Acee Lindem wrote:
[...]
More seriously, if there's a technical point here can someone help
me find it.
For L2VPN and L3VPN the job of dissemination and discovery has been done
in iBGP since it lends itself very nicely to limiting the scope of
the information
to the PE that need. With the proposal of using opaque AS LSAs, every router
in the OSPF routing domain must receive the L1VPN information.
correct. But keep in mind that the context of operation is a L1
transport network, who's sole purpose is to support delivery of
transport services. The scale of these networks, and the number of
total routes carried, is radically different than in the general IP
network case where L2 and L3VPNs operate. Also, most (actually, I
think it is all) of these L1 networks do not run BGP and have no
intention of running BGP. Furthermore, the sole purpose for running
BGP would be to support L1VPNs. BGP isn't something that is already
present to be leveraged.
so, for the time being (say 3-5 years) the choices are:
(a) no solution
(b) a proprietary solution
(c) a standardized OSPF solution
The plan of the WG, as I understand it, is to work on both a BGP and
OPSF solution and then (possibly based on an implementation survey)
decide if both should move forward to PS.
What would you suggest as a way forward?
Additionally, heretofore, we've avoided making OSPF a generalized transport
mechanism for flooding information. Before we'd take such a
direction, you'd need to
convince the OSPF WG that this is a prudent direction. IMHO, this probably
isn't going to happen.
huh??? That horse escaped the barn with RFC2370. To quote "The
information field may be used directly by OSPF or by other
applications." Certainly TE, rfc3630, also falls into the category
of using OSPF as a generalized transport mechanism.
If there are more discussion points that I have dropped, please
feel free to raise them as well.
I guess the lack of response speaks volumes.
Thanks,
Adrian
BTW, I really don't like the "dark smoky-room" approach being taken
here. If a WG participant/AD/etc. has an issue, then they should
raise it themselves and not ask the WG chair to do it for them. If
they don't care enough to raise it themselves, then IMO we, the WG,
shouldn't waste our time on it!
Better that Adrian solicted input from the OSPF WG than have you
wait for this to be
rejected by the OSPF WG at a later IETF. Your L1VPN solution hasn't been
presented to OSPF WG or even posted to the OSPF WG list. Lest you make the
same mistake twice, I suggest you socialize the IDR WG (where this application
belongs) early on in the process.
Acee
My apologies, this comment was *not* directed at the OSPF WG
chairs. I think it *is* appropriate for one WG chair to consult with
another WG chair and report back to the WG on that conversation. I
also think it appropriate for the other WG chair to chime in on the
follow-up discussion as you have thankfully done. My comment was
really directed at the comments by other L1VPN WG member's that where
represented in Adrian's mail.
Much thanks,
Lou
_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
L1vpn@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
