Hi Robert, In-line [Uma]: -- Uma C.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:40 AM To: Uma Chunduri <[email protected]> Cc: RTGWG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Routing in DC RTGWG interim - updated /* Trimming the lists a bit */ Hi Uma, Well I would actually start with common understanding and agreement as to what's wrong with RFC7938 based deployments in the first place ? Is there some document or draft which describes it well ? [Uma]: Great question. Am not aware of any and was asking this question to myself back when I was reviewing/going-through one of the proposals.. But AFAIS an inclination to use TE in the fabric with a controller and hence you need a full topology view at your disposal. Also link (you have massive ECMP any ways in the CLOS) and node protection?? May be more…. Is BGP local auto discovery an issue ? Then let's solve it .. it is simple problem. Some already solved it with auto BGP peering to link local addresses. [Uma]: Possible. I am not sure this is the central issue ..but for SPF based approaches to have the topology view this could be one part of it (and hence in bgp-spf, usage of BGP-LS to advertise the TCP peering as a Link NLRI with new TLVs distinguishing itself from IGP adj representation). Again, am not fully sure how auto discovery would be critical if it is EBGP single-hop peering sessions. To perhaps restate Keyur's question ... Do we all agree with the requirements as presented by Tony P which are triggering RIFT ? [Uma]: Have few questions .. but some other day. [Inline image 1] Cheers, R. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Uma Chunduri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: One quick suggestion for the solution presenters: Perhaps it’s good to have a section in respective documents how the proposal can bring operational simplicity (if at all) than existing deployments (say than RFC 7938 based..). -- Uma C.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
