In the context of L2 and L3 VPNs BGP is engineered to be a pub-sub vector distribution protocol. EVPN, IPVPN, BGP-VPLS, etc are distributed network applications that use/prefer BGP to distribute application-specific information to peers for the purpose of creating overlay virtual networks. BGP isn't really what you pay for (you might even get it for free), it's the application that you pay for. This is true whether you buy a centralized SDN controller running a network application or you choose a distributed solution using BGP, or applications that might use SIP. I think people are getting too hung up on the simpler parts of the problem.
On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:05 AM, Patrick Frejborg wrote: > Hi Aldrin, > > is BGP the best alternative as the control plane mechanism? > > What NVO3 is trying to achieve is to setup and remove tunnels between > NVEs when VM/TES are added/moved on the NVEs. So what we really need > is "tunnel initiation protocol", right? > I believe that a SIP architecture is closer to that than BGP, which is > basically a routing protocol. > > The NVE would be something similar as a SIP UA. When a VM/TES gets > added at the NVE the NVE sends an INVITE to the "conference group" > (the CUG) with its local members (MAC addresses) to the SIP signalling > system. Instead of having voice codes in the INVITE, it contain a list > of supported NVO3 "codecs", e.g. VXLAN, NVGRE; STT, MPLS, hopefully > some day PR-SCTP etc and the NVEs established tunnels between each > other, if not already established. Liveness detection of the path is > handled by the transport protocol. > > Today, you can buy a device containing an advanced SIP UA stack for > less than 50$-100$, but a switch/router with an advanced BGP stack is > a lot more expensive. Thus it would interesting to visit an SIP > architecture to see what it can offer as an NVO3 control plane > solution before rushing into a BGP. > > Patrick > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Aldrin Isaac <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm not sure that the dust has fully settled on the matter. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system-07 suggests >> the use of XMPP. The question is whether there is any sound technical >> reason (versus preferences) why leveraging BGP is problematic. I >> personally haven't heard a convincing argument. >> _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
