> -----Original Message----- > From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 7:20 AM > To: Drake, John E; Acee Lindem > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [L1vpn] Issues and concerns about Basic Mode OSPF Discovery > > > > > IB>> I have already answered to this. In the context of the L1VPNs > only > > PEs > > are the users of the TE info, because only them who perform path > > computation, and the only purpose of TE info distribution is to enable > the > > path computation. Likewise PEs are the only users of the L1VPN > > information. > > So I don't see any conceptual difference between L1VPN and TE > applications > > in this respect. > > > > In the TE case, the PEs require the information about the Ps' links in > order to perform CSPF, so the PEs and the Ps are working cooperatively. > This is not the same as the L1VPN case. > > IB>> But Ps do not use the TE information. So, from the scalability point > of > view how is different from L1VPN application? > Furthermore, in the Routing per-VPN model Ps will have to advertise which > L1VPNs P links belong to to enable PEs publishing per-VPN resource layout > to > CEs.
It sounds as though you are proposing that a P link is configured with a list of the VPNs which can use it, and that this information is advertised in the IGP. If this is what you are proposing, I think it is a truly terrible idea. IB>> And why is it so? Routing per-VPN model requires that PEs provide the attached CEs with info about resource availability of Provider network on per-VPN basis, so that CEs could control the path selection over the Provider network. You have to configure P links (and their attributes) anyway, so you might as well configure the VPN constraints - a simple and light overhead that will make PEs dynamically discover which P links belong to which VPNs. I have asked already: how would you accomplish this with BGP? Igor _______________________________________________ L1vpn mailing list L1vpn@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn