Hi Hamid,
Oh, could you also explain why it is not necessary to
advertise the VPN ID.
Or did I miss it?
Certainly. BGP has all the necessary mechanisms to achieve both
VPN membership distribution without a need to carry
specific IDs that uniquely identify the VPNs.
Right. No specific ID needs to be carried, but it must be possible for a PE
to determine, for each VPN it serves, which remote PEs (BGP peers) also
serve that VPN, and which advertisements from those PEs apply to which VPN
(i.e. into which PIT to place the advertisements). Lastly, it must be
possible for the PE to determine which PIT to access when setting up L1VPN
connections.
Since the type of l1vpn service we are interested in is a
port-based VPN service, from a control plane point of view
all what is needed is the ability for the remote PEs to
discover the set of PEs that have VPNs in common and the set
of ports associated with the VPNs.
Agreed.
BGP allows that through the use of
BGP-MP and with the use of extended community (such as route target)
for the membership and topology distribution. This scheme
plays both the role of a VPN-ID and topology information
distribution without a need for an explicit advertisement
of VPN-IDs.
OK. Understood.
Essentially, the "shared" configuration information across the network is
the route target, or rather the set of route targets, that correspond to the
L1VPN.
Do you (or why do you) think a VPN-ID is necessary in the
discovery process?.
No I don't think it is necessary.
It might have been helpful for diagnostic purposes. But since it is possible
to map between route target and L1VPN ID within the management framework, it
is not essential.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
L1vpn@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
