Ahmed,
> May be I understood the source of confusion regarding paths
The draft does not require modifications to existing prefix
advertisements rules or implementations. All the draft is saying is that
if a prefix satisfies the conditions for attaching and advertising "rL"
and the prefix is being advertised, then rPE attaches "rL" as an
optional attribute.
To the best of my knowledge today we do not have a defined attribute in
BGP to carry MPLS labels. If you are proposing a solution which does not
have corresponding encoding in the protocol you intend to use I think
you are going a wrong way.
Regarding diverging to implementation details, I am not prepared to
discuss any implementation details, at least at this point in time, and
I will refrain from commenting on any of them.
That's neat :) While you may claim that everything is an implementation
detail I think you should not be stating as an advantage of your
proposal the following:
" o Very scalable:
o No router has to copy the routing table of another router"
AB2: As mentioned at the beginning of the email, the draft never
indicated that it requires changes to BGP prefix advertisement rules or
implementations. All the draft is saying that "rL" can be attached to
advertised prefixes if the PE can and is willing to act as a repair PE
Than your solution is broken. You must at min enable best external to
cover the case where the VPN chooses by local preference or med
different exit point as best path. If you do not enable best external or
add-paths your repair paths will not get advertised.
Anyhow to realize your scheme even if we solve major issues a network
wide upgrade of participating routers is mandatory.
AB2: This is incorrect. The scheme can be incrementally deployed few
routers at a time. For example, one iPE, one rP and two ePEs.
That was correct. Pls notice what I said: "participating routers". Do
you expect iPE, rP and two ePEs all be from the same vendor and same OS
branch supporting your feature ???
AB2: The draft never claimed that it works in all scenarios (and no
document should be making this claim). But for this particular scenario,
can you provide more clarification ?
I am afraid this is an implementation detail how you organize the packet
switching after termination of the IP tunnel.
Rgs,
R.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
