Hi Ali, I agree that new encapsulations are not ideal unless they clearly supersede existing encapsulations. My comments are purely about the applicability of MPLS-based VPN for scalable and robust network virtualization in the DC.
Best regards -- aldrin On Sunday, December 9, 2012, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: > > Hi Aldrin, > > I agree with your statements on the application of MPLS and MPLSoIP in > DC network, but my question is that do we need yet another new > encapsulation. As you know and worked with us, we have successfully shown > how E-VPN control-plane can be applied to VXLAN and NVGRE data-plane even > without MPLS client layer and still maintaining the features/functionality > in E-VPN. We also currently have a standard based for doing MPLSoIP using > GRE encap and keeping MPLS client layer intact. So, in light of the above, > do we need another encap? > > At one point I was myself thinking of MPLSoUPD but considering that any > new silicons that support NVGRE also will support ECMP based on GRE key, I > cannot justify another new encap anymore. > > Cheers, > Ali > > From: Aldrin Isaac <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');>> > Date: Saturday, December 8, 2012 9:51 PM > To: Melinda Shore <[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');>> > Cc: "[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');>" < > [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');>> > Subject: Re: [nvo3] [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-xu-mpls-in-udp-03 > > Historically there really was no MPLS enabled products that hit the > right price points and/or features needed for the DC -- but some of us > operators *have* implemented MPLS in the DC very successfully. My > observation is that some vendors don't do MPLS/MPBGP very well and > aggressively discourage its adoption, while other vendors reserve them for > their SP products for which they need reasons to charge a premium. Now > with support for MPLS in merchant silicon, I don't see any good reason why > MPLS-based DCVPN solutions (IPVPN, E-VPN) should be held back, particularly > if the overlay tunnel is IP-based and MPLS labels are used for VPN context, > split-horizon, etc. > > > On Thursday, November 29, 2012, Melinda Shore wrote: > >> On 11/29/12 5:14 PM, S. Davari wrote: >> > Regarding Technical merits, all these solutions are technically >> > sound, the issue is that we don't want to have a dozen solution to >> > the same problem. >> >> Traditionally the IETF has let the market sort out competing >> technologies rather than try to deem one "best," but there's >> got to be at least some evidence that a technology will be >> adopted. I have to agree that MPLS in data centers is a >> tough sell. It would be great to see some input from data >> center operators to help sort this out. >> >> Melinda >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >> >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
