Hi, John: In your proposal, there is the following text “ the network controller SHOULD ensure that the IGP and TE metrics for these resources is higher than the metrics for the underlay network resources allocated to non-enhanced VPNs.” Considering these resources will span across the network and be changed upon the slicing requirements , will such arrangement make the metric allocation within the network a mess? If the above statement can’t be met, how you ensure the traffic that pass the P router use the dedicated resource(for example, bandwidth)?
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Mar 26, 2020, at 23:31, John E Drake > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > As Joel notes, it is true that enhanced VPNs require the use of specific > underlay network resources, either dedicated or shared, but the this needs to > be done without installing overlay VPN awareness in the P routers, which is > inherently unscalable and operationally complex. Also, since VPNs span > multiple ASes, putting overlay VPN state in an IGP doesn't work. > > Please see: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-drake-bess-enhanced-vpn-02 > > Yours Irrespectively, > > John > > > Juniper Business Use Only > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern >> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:36 AM >> To: [email protected]; lsr <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Using IS-IS Multi-Topology (MT) for Segment Routing based >> Virtual Transport Network >> >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> >> >> In once sense, the statement is inherently true. A VPN technology without >> underlay support would seem to have significant difficulty in consistently >> meeting an SLA. Having said that much, the rest does not seem to follow. >> >> Yours, >> Joel
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
