From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 5:51 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Uma Chunduri <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Routing in DC RTGWG interim - updated
Great question!!! I want to assure the WG that Robert and I have had no prior collusion and he asked this independently… LOL .. Like the RTGWG would not know alreasy that I do not play such setup games ??? ;-) Come on AC ! All in fun… ;^) We have thought about that. The beauty of BGP SPF is that you can use it solely for the underlay and maintain the services (e.g., RFC 4364) in the overlay. Additionally, it is very easy to migrate only a portion of your data center to BGP SPF. Routers operating in both domains (BGP SPF and RFC 7938) can perform the interworking by advertising AF IPv4 unicast routes into the BGP-SPF domain as BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and reachable BGP-SPF prefixes into the normal BGP IPv4 or IPv6 unicast domain as reachable NLRI. That's not what I am talking about ... I am talking of running both in parallel not interworking at the boundary. Think outside of the box pls. Just to translate to your world is like running ISIS and OSPF together if for nothing else then for routing with OSPF and using ISIS only to compute your LFAs (if really needed and OSPF does not support it yet on your boxes) :) . Yes – the could be done and the next-hops could be resolved recursively anywhere in the BGP-SPF domain. However, what advantage would this bring over advertising attached prefixes as BGP-LS Prefix NLRI? Thanks, Acee Best, R.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
