Hi AC, My point was to indicate that running SPF regardless if it happens in central controller or at each switch would be perhaps fine as a add-on not as replacement of basic 7938.
As simple as this. Please think about it :) IMHO such positioning is a smoothest way to move forward. And if someone later thinks that BGP-SPF is cool and works great they can at their will decommission vanilla 7938. But this should be an option to the user and BGP-SPF architecture should be written from day one with a notion of augmentation not a clean slate proposal. Cheers, R. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > From: rtgwg <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Raszuk < > [email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 4:34 PM > To: Uma Chunduri <[email protected]> > Cc: Routing WG <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Routing in DC RTGWG interim - updated > > > 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). >> > > Well on BGP SPF proposal I see number of advantage .. but very honestly I > do not buy into how it is being "sold" here. > > If folks talking about it would say ... our proposal is to run BGP SPF on > controller only to optimize and augment things while you still run normal > eBGP in CLOS I would be perhaps very interested in seriously supporting > this work. > > But if I hear that this is to replace eBGP and push routes left and right > "centrally computed" this goes way over the max level of gain vs > drawback/risk level one is to accept. > > > We are really not intending the controller deployment to follow either of > the above. The SPF route computation is distributed in each BGP switch and > hierarchal reflectors are used to allow for a spare mesh of BGP sessions. > This overcomes the many copies issue that Tony alluded to when BGP is used > for <key, value> distribution. The controller or route reflectors > (dependent on the use case) could subset the scoping on the BGP-LS > information or inject NLRI to influence the SPF. > > My fellow authors can chime in as well. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > Best, > R. > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
