----- Original Message ----
From: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>
To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>; Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>; Lou Berger
<lberger@labn.net>
Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; softwires@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:20:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)
Igor,
Doesn't this defeat auto-discovery? I.e., how is a new PE added to a
given L1VPN?
Thanks,
John
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:
i_bryskin@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:51 AM
>To: Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger
>Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
>
softwires@ietf.org>Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG
>(2nd question)
>
>Yakov,
>
>You said:
>
>
>... And while on the subject of scaling, please keep in mind
>that BGP only stores L1VPN routes on PEs that have sites of
>that VPN connected to them, and on an RR
if used, but *not* on
>any of the P routers. In contrast, rfc5252 (OSPF for L1VPN
>autodiscovery) results in storing *all VPN TE information for
>all the VPNs* on *all* the IGP nodes, both P and PE. So,
>clearly BGP-based approach scales better than OSPF-based approach.
>
>Yakov.
>
>This is not true in case of multi-instance OSPF: one can build
>an overlay interconnecting PEs via one or small number of Ps
>using IPinIP tunnels and run in this overlay an instance of
>OSPF specifically designated for distribution of L1VPN
>information. In this case the OSPF solution won't scale any
>worse than the BGP approach. Note. that rfc252 never said that
>the instance of OSPF used for flooding of the L1VPN
>information must be the same instance that is used for the
>distribution of IP-related
LSAs.
>
>Regards,
>Igor
>
>
>
>