On (2013-04-02 12:42 +0200), Robert Raszuk wrote: Hi Robert,
> Do you have in mind sort of CSC analogy that tenants internally have their > own demux based on bottom 802.1Q tag while top one would be used just like > a single VLAN tag as described ? I'm thinking if 'VPN forwarder' is catering to many hosts, I might want in L2 to have top tag for host and bottom tag for guest. If XMPP just allows single tag, it may exclude external VPN forwarder or at least limit its scale. But maybe that is intentional, to steer away from external VPN forwarder in large-scale deployments. > I think you can build IPv6 DC virtualization services while still using > IPv4 only DC core. I was just worried as draft specifically allows for IPv6, yet XMPP messages seem to be trailed with /32. I'm personally not interested much in dual-stack control-plane. I'm happy to run 6PE now, and maybe in future go IPv6 only control-plane and 4PE for legacy. But I understand it might not be popular position. > The translation happens at the option B ASBR. I would not really run MPLS > LDP + IGP or IGP with extension to carry labels or other form of tags in > the DC. Fully agreed. I could see myself running this draft, but I would not want to trust 'VPN forwarder' fully, so OptB with appropriate implementation which actually does implement label checking would be requirement for me. > Personally I like Petr's draft: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc-03 I'll have to read it, thanks. -- ++ytti
