[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)
Igor,
Actually, I am not sure that you do understand what I wrote, because you
are providing examples of the redundancy that I specified - every PE
router needs to have connectivity to two other routers in the IGP
instance.
Thanks,
John
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:06 PM
>To: Drake, John E; 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)
>
>Hi John,
>
>I understand what you are saying and disagree. The overlay I
>am talking about logically is a separate network and as any
>network it should be sufficiently redundant to function. There
>is a number of ways how you can address the redundancy
>concerns. Look at the examples below:
>
>a) interconnect all VPN-aware PEs into a single ring:
>PE=======PE
> || ||
>PE PE
>|| ||
>PE PE
>|| ||
>... ....
>PE=======PE
>
>b) connect each PE to two interconnected Ps
>
>PE P PE
> ||
>PE || PE
> ||
>PE || PE
> ||
>... || ....
>PE P PE
>
>
>Note that tunnels can traverse any number of VPN-unaware Ps and PEs.
>
>Igor
>
>
>----- 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: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 2:24:26 PM
>Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG
>(2nd question)
>
>Igor,
>
>Several years ago when OSPF was first proposed as an
>autodiscovery mechanism for L1VPNs, you were told that it was
>a bad idea due to its scaling properties and impact on the IGP.
>
>You are now tacitly agreeing with those who told you it was a bad idea.
>
>For your suggested approach to work with sufficient
>redundancy, the topology of the overlay needs to be configured
>such that every selected P router is connected to at least two
>other selected P routers and every PE router needs to be
>connected to at least two selected P routers.
>
>When you are done with this configuration, you are left with a
>situation in which *every* PE and selected P router will have
>*all* L1VPN routes.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com]
>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:10 PM
>>To: Drake, John E; 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)
>>
>>Are you calling me silly? Are you coming to Minneapolis? :=)
>>
>>Seriously, what is wrong in your opinion with this approach?
>>Many people are talking about multi-instance IGPs. What they have in
>>mind is improving the IGP scalability:
>>a) by removing non-IP advertisements from the instance of IGP that
>>manages IP routing/forwarding tables into separate IGP instance(s);
>>b) by distributing non-IP information only to and via
>inerested parties
>>leaving the bulk of Ps out of the process.
>>
>>In my opinion this is exactly what is needed for the OSPF-based L1VPN
>>application.
>>
>>Igor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----- 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 2:31:36 PM
>>Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd
>>question)
>>
>>So you are proposing an OSPF route reflector? At what point does the
>>silliness stop?
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com]
>>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:29 AM
>>>To: Drake, John E; 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)
>>>
>>>Hi John,
>>>
>>>No, not really. When you add a PE you configure local
>>interfaces, local
>>>VPN port mappings, stuff like that. While doing this you will also
>>>configure an IPinIP tunnel to one of your spoke Ps and enable L1VPN
>>>OSPF instance on the tunnel.
>>>Once you did that the local VPN information will be flooded
>>accross the
>>>overlay, likewise, the new PE will get all the necessary information
>>>from other PEs.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Igor
>>>
>>>
>>>----- 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>