[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,
> And I am not arguing that sufficient redundancy must be provided. However you
> said:
> >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.
>
> If you just simply interconnect all VPN-aware PEs into a single
> ring via IPin IP tunnels and run an instance of OSPF to distribute
> VPN-related information between them, it will provide sufficient
> redundancy and involve exactly *zero* Ps.
>
> So, I want you to drop your lecturing tone for a minute and simply
> tell in what respect in your opinion this approach is not perfect
> fo the L1VPN application. Otherwise, I am not interested in this
> discussion any longer. I do like to hear comments from other people.
Since you asked, one problem with using OSPF, as John correctly
pointed out, is that you are left with a situation in which *every* PE
router will have *all* L1VPN routes for all the L1VPNs. Of course,
this is "perfect" in a sense that you can do no worse than that :-)
Yakov.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>
> To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>; Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>; Lo
u Berger <lberger@labn.net>
> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; c
camp@ops.ietf.org; softwires@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2008 8:10:07 AM
> Subject: 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --0-1141253910-1220449648=:97601
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>
> <html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><
body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:
12pt"><div>And I am not arguing that sufficient redundancy must be provided. Ho
wever you said:<br>>For your suggested approach to work with sufficient <br>
>redundancy, the topology of the overlay needs to be configured <br>>such
that every selected P router is connected to at least two <br>>other select
ed P routers and every PE router needs to be <br>>connected to at least two
selected P routers.<br><br>If you just simply interconnect all VPN-aware PEs in
to a single ring via IPinIP tunnels and run an instance of OSPF to distribute V
PN-related information between them, it will provide sufficient redundancy and
involve exactly *zero* Ps.<br>So, I want you to drop your lecturing tone for a
minute and simply tell in what respect in your opinion this approach is not per
fect fo the L1VPN
> application. Otherwise, I am not interested in this discussion any longer. I
do like to hear comments from other people.<br><br>Igor <br><br></div><div sty
le="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><d
iv style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">----- Orig
inal Message ----<br>From: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com><br>
To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>; Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.n
et>; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net><br>Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juni
per.net>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; sof
twires@ietf.org<br>Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2008 8:10:07 AM<br>Subject: RE
: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)<br><br>
> Igor,<br><br>Actually, I am not sure that you do understand what I wrote, bec
ause you<br>are providing examples of the redundancy that I specified - every P
E<br>router needs to have connectivity to two other routers in the IGP<br>insta
nce.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>John <br><br>>-----Original Message-----<br>>F
rom: Igor Bryskin [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:
i_bryskin@yahoo.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>] <br>>Sent: Tuesday, September
02, 2008 3:06 PM<br>>To: Drake, John E; Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger<br>>Cc:
Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mai
lto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org">ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <br>><a ymailto="mailto:soft
wires@ietf.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a><br>>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG <br>>(2nd que
stion)<br>><br>>Hi John,<br>><br>>I understand what you are saying
and disagree. The
> overlay I <br>>am talking about logically is a separate network and as an
y <br>>network it should be sufficiently redundant to function. There <br>&g
t;is a number of ways how you can address the redundancy <br>>concerns. Look
at the examples below:<br>><br>>a) interconnect all VPN-aware PEs into a
single ring: <br>>PE=======PE<br>> ||
||<br>>PE &nbs
p; PE <br>>||
||<br>>PE PE <br>&
gt;|| ||<br>>
... ....<br>>PE======
=PE<br>><br>>b) connect each PE to two interconnected Ps <br>><br>>
PE P  
;
> PE<br>> &n
bsp; || <
br>>PE || &nbs
p; PE <br>> &n
bsp; || &n
bsp; <br>>PE &
nbsp; ||
PE <br>>  
; || <br>>...&
nbsp; ||
....<br>>PE &
nbsp; P &
nbsp;
> PE<br>><br>><br>>Note that tunnels can traverse any number of VPN-u
naware Ps and PEs.<br>><br>>Igor<br>><br>><br>>----- Original Me
ssage ----<br>>From: "Drake, John E" <<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@bo
eing.com" href="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>&g
t;<br>>To: Igor Bryskin <<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="ma
ilto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>>; Yakov Rekhter <br>>&l
t;<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@j
uniper.net</a>>; Lou Berger <<a ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="m
ailto:lberger@labn.net">lberger@labn.net</a>><br>>Cc: Yakov Rekhter <<
a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juni
per.net</a>>; Adrian Farrel <br>><<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.
uk" href="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk";>adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>>; <a
> ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@o
ps.ietf.org</a>; <a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@
ietf.org">softwires@ietf.org</a><br>>Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 2:24:2
6 PM<br>>Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG <br>
>(2nd question)<br>><br>>Igor,<br>><br>>Several years ago when O
SPF was first proposed as an <br>>autodiscovery mechanism for L1VPNs, you we
re told that it was <br>>a bad idea due to its scaling properties and impact
on the IGP.<br>><br>>You are now tacitly agreeing with those who told yo
u it was a bad idea.<br>><br>>For your suggested approach to work with su
fficient <br>>redundancy, the topology of the overlay needs to be configured
<br>>such that every selected P router is connected to at least two <br>>
;other selected P routers and every PE router needs to be <br>>connected to
at least two selected
> P routers.<br>><br>>When you are done with this configuration, you are
left with a <br>>situation in which *every* PE and selected P router will h
ave <br>>*all* L1VPN routes.<br>><br>>Thanks,<br>><br>>John <br>
><br>>>-----Original Message-----<br>>>From: Igor Bryskin [mailt
o:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_b
ryskin@yahoo.com</a>]<br>>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:10 PM<br>>
>To: Drake, John E; Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger<br>>>Cc: Yakov Rekhter;
Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ie
tf.org">ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <br>>><a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.o
rg" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a><br>>>Subject:
Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd <br>>>questio
n)<br>>><br>>>Are you calling me silly? Are you coming to Minneapol
is?
> :=)<br>>><br>>>Seriously, what is wrong in your opinion with thi
s approach? <br>>>Many people are talking about multi-instance IGPs. What
they have in <br>>>mind is improving the IGP scalability:<br>>>a)
by removing non-IP advertisements from the instance of IGP that <br>>>man
ages IP routing/forwarding tables into separate IGP instance(s);<br>>>b)
by distributing non-IP information only to and via <br>>inerested parties <b
r>>>leaving the bulk of Ps out of the process.<br>>><br>>>In
my opinion this is exactly what is needed for the OSPF-based L1VPN <br>>>
application.<br>>><br>>>Igor<br>>><br>>><br>>><br
>>><br>>><br>>><br>>>----- Original Message ----<br>>
;>From: "Drake, John E" <<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; hre
f="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>><br>>>
;To: Igor Bryskin
> <<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com
">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>>; Yakov Rekhter <br>>><<a ymailto="mailto
:yakov@juniper.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>;
Lou Berger <<a ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="mailto:lberger@labn.n
et">lberger@labn.net</a>><br>>>Cc: Yakov Rekhter <<a ymailto="mailt
o:yakov@juniper.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>;
Adrian Farrel <br>>><<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="ma
ilto:adrian@olddog.co.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>>; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp
@ops.ietf.org" href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <a ymai
lto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf
.org</a><br>>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:31:36 PM<br>>>Subject
: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd
> <br>>>question)<br>>><br>>>So you are proposing an OSPF ro
ute reflector? At what point does the <br>>>silliness stop?<br>>
><br>>>>-----Original Message-----<br>>>>From: Igor Bryski
n [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.
com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>]<br>>>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:2
9 AM<br>>>>To: Drake, John E; Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger<br>>>>
;Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href=
"mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <br>>>><a ymailto=
"mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org
</a><br>>>>Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires
WG (2nd<br>>>>question)<br>>>><br>>>>Hi John,<br>&g
t;>><br>>>>No, not really. When you add a PE you configure
> local<br>>>interfaces, local<br>>>>VPN port mappings, stuff l
ike that. While doing this you will also <br>>>>configure an IPinIP tu
nnel to one of your spoke Ps and enable L1VPN <br>>>>OSPF instance on
the tunnel.<br>>>>Once you did that the local VPN information will be
flooded<br>>>accross the<br>>>>overlay, likewise, the new PE wil
l get all the necessary information <br>>>>from other PEs.<br>>>
><br>>>>Cheers,<br>>>>Igor<br>>>><br>>>>
<br>>>>----- Original Message ----<br>>>>From: "Drake, John E
" <<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; href="mailto:John.E.Drake2@b
oeing.com">John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>><br>>>>To: Igor Bryskin <
;<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_br
yskin@yahoo.com</a>>; Yakov Rekhter <br>>>><<a ymailto="mailto:y
akov@juniper.net"
> href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>; Lou Berger <<a
ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="mailto:lberger@labn.net";>lberger@labn.
net</a>><br>>>>Cc: Yakov Rekhter <<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@junip
er.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>; Adrian Farre
l <br>>>><<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto:adri
an@olddog.co.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>>; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf
.org" href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <a ymailto="mail
to:softwires@ietf.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a><
br>>>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:20:16 AM<br>>>>Subject
: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd<br>>>>que
stion)<br>>>><br>>>>Igor,<br>>>><br>>>>Does
n't this defeat auto-discovery? I.e., how is a new PE <br>>added to a
<br>>>>given
> L1VPN?<br>>>><br>>>>Thanks,<br>>>><br>>>>
;John<br>>>><br>>>>>-----Original Message-----<br>>>
>>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href
="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>]<br>>>>>Sent:
Friday, August 29, 2008 5:51 AM<br>>>>>To: Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berg
er<br>>>>>Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:ccam
p@ops.ietf.org" href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <br>&g
t;>>><a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@iet
f.org">softwires@ietf.org</a><br>>>>>Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP T
E attr last call by softwires WG (2nd<br>>>>>question)<br>>>&
gt;><br>>>>>Yakov,<br>>>>><br>>>>>You sa
id:<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>>... And while on
the subject of
> scaling, please keep in mind<br>>>that BGP<br>>>>>only sto
res L1VPN routes on PEs that have sites of that VPN<br>>>connected<br>>
;>>>to them, and on an RR if used, but *not* on any of the P <br>>r
outers. In <br>>>>>contrast, rfc5252 (OSPF for L1VPN<br>>>>
;>autodiscovery) results in storing *all VPN TE information <br>>for all
the<br>>>>>VPNs* on *all* the IGP nodes, both P and PE. So, clearly
BGP-based <br>>>>>approach scales better than OSPF-based approach.
<br>>>>><br>>>>>Yakov.<br>>>>><br>>>&
gt;>This is not true in case of multi-instance OSPF: one can build an <br>&g
t;>>>overlay interconnecting PEs via one or small number of Ps<br>>
>>using IPinIP<br>>>>>tunnels and run in this overlay an inst
ance of OSPF specifically <br>>>>>designated for distribution of L1
VPN information. In
> this<br>>>>case the OSPF<br>>>>>solution won't scale an
y worse than the BGP approach. Note. <br>>>>that rfc252<br>>>>
;>never said that the instance of OSPF used for flooding of the L1VPN <br>&g
t;>>>information must be the same instance that is used for the<br>>
;>>distribution<br>>>>>of IP-related LSAs.<br>>>>>
;<br>>>>>Regards,<br>>>>>Igor<br>>>>><br>&g
t;>>><br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>><br>>&
gt;><br>>>><br>>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>
><br>><br>><br>><br><br></div></div></div><br>
>
> </body></html>
> --0-1141253910-1220449648=:97601--