Hi Petr, While creating the blueprint you must have considered different options, eBGP vs iBGP, mixed, summarization (different places), MPLS over foo, etc Would be great if you could elaborate why the design looks the way it is.
Thanks! Cheers, Jeff From: Petr Lapukhov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 at 8:43 AM To: Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Antoni Przygienda <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: WG review for draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc Hi Tony, I do agree that the document is rather operational/blueprint in its nature. However, I think it's beneficial to have a practical example and start discussion around how large-scale routing in "dense" networks could be accomplished using existing routing protocols. This could be used as a factual ground in evaluation various new routing protocol designs for similar environments. As we progress, I hope to add more practical data (e.g. convergence times). There are some interesting theoretical aspects (e.g. using route summarization with simple virtual aggregation) that haven't been explored yet and could be an interesting discussion topic as well. Thank you! Petr ________________________________ From: rtgwg [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Alia Atlas [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:23 AM To: Antoni Przygienda Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: WG review for draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc Hi Tony, On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Antoni Przygienda <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > hi antoni, > > i am all for accepting it as a WG item - IMO its an excellent proofpoint that > really large datacenters can be run based on exisiting protocols and [Tony said] Hannes, yepp, first, work's interesting & fact that it works gives it its own merit, should be possibly taken up by someone IMO. My points were though: 1. I didn't see 'running large datacenters' as something on RTGWG charter and it's also typically something that is first driven by larger set of requirements rather than a single datapoint. As I said earlier, this falls into the other work and handling individual drafts without a home. It's a way of getting the review and consensus for drafts that would otherwise be AD-sponsored. I agree that this is a change from how rtgwg has been used in the past. 2. A blueprint of a particular solution is exactly that. It is not a generic protocol specification or guideline that will fi t e'one. If you have multi-TS which bring their own existing addresses or need MAC mobility or have to run L2 applications or don't have BGP implementation with necessary twists or other tid-nits which tons of DC happen to carry about then the shoe may not fit. Absolutely - this is a starting point that gives one idea. > even getting to 10000s of routing nodes is not the end of the world. > [Tony said] We know that from a running thing called the 'Internet' ;-P I know I took it out the context but I couldn't resist the tongue-in-cheek pun possible ;-) Again, looking fwd' to presentation and discussion on the floor. Please - start the discussion here and now! I was delighted to see how many people were clearly familiar with the work and thought it was a good idea to discuss. Let's get some good reviews and suggestions so the draft can be much better before the next IETF. Alia --- tony _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=4Cgrr4FbaWmFJmFxSc8F6Q%3D%3D%0A&m=p6%2BjkvZVeCkwqto%2FcW%2F0sFjBDtWiked%2BB7ujDChwB7s%3D%0A&s=459951d713904ffe2c9fba132e7c24489d25231fc72c0738fb0700c648cc1053>
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
