[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,
> Yakov,
>
> Please, see in-line.
see in-line...
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
> To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; softwires@ietf.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2008 9:55:49 AM
> Subject: 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 :-)
>
> IB>> Ok. Several points here. Note that neither Ps nor VPN-unaware PEs
> IB>> participate in the distribution/maintenance of VPN information,
> IB>> which is already significantly better than what you said about
> IB>> the OSPF solution in your previous mail:
>
> >... 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.
>
> I do agree that if you use a single ring overlay interconnecting
> all VPN aware PEs you will have LSDBs at all PEs contain VPN info
> about all VPNs. However, in case of L1VPN this is not VPN routes,
> rather VPN Provider-To-Customer port mappings which I believe will
> prove to be significantly smaller, so I am not sure yet how bad
> is that. In any case, if it does present a problem on a network
> with large number of VPNs, who said that it has to be a single
> overlay? Why not to configure several overlays - each containing a
> single ring that interconnects PEs participating in a common sub-set
> of VPNs, and run a seperate instance o f OSPF in each overlay?
Sure. And this would be a good illustration of the fact that the
whole idea of using OSPF for L1VPN auto-discovery falls into the
paradigm of inherently flawed designs whose weakness can be solved
only by the usage of elaborate features, that, in turn, introduce
a new set of problems.
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 questio
n)
> >
> > 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-siz
e:
> 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 <b
r>
> >redundancy, the topology of the overlay needs to be configured <br>>su
ch
> that every selected P router is connected to at least two <br>>other selec
t
> ed P routers and every PE router needs to be <br>>connected to at least tw
o
> 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 an
d
> 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 p
er
> 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 st
y
> 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;">----- Or
ig
> inal Message ----<br>From: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com><b
r>
> To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>; Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper
.n
> et>; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net><br>Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@ju
ni
> per.net>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; s
of
> 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, b
ec
> 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>ins
ta
> 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="mailt
o:
> i_bryskin@yahoo.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>] <br>>Sent: Tuesday, Septembe
r
> 02, 2008 3:06 PM<br>>To: Drake, John E; Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger<br>>C
c:
> Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="ma
i
> lto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org">ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <br>><a ymailto="mailto:so
ft
> wires@ietf.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a><br>&g
t;
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG <br>>(2nd q
ue
> stion)<br>><br>>Hi John,<br>><br>>I understand what you are sayin
g
> 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. Lo
ok
> at the examples below:<br>><br>>a) interconnect all VPN-aware PEs into
a
> single ring: <br>>PE=======PE<br>> ||
> ||<br>>PE &n
bs
> p; PE <br>>|| &nbs
p;
> ||<br>>PE PE <br>
&
> gt;|| ||<br>&g
t;
> ... ....<br>>PE====
==
> =PE<br>><br>>b) connect each PE to two interconnected Ps <br>><br>&g
t;
> PE P &nb
sp
> ;
> > PE<br>>
&n
> bsp; ||
<
> br>>PE || &n
bs
> p; PE <br>>
&n
> bsp; ||
&n
> bsp; <br>>PE
&
> nbsp; ||  
;
> PE <br>> &nb
sp
> ; || <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@ju
ni
> per.net</a>>; Adrian Farrel <br>><<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.c
o.
> 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:softwire
s@
> 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 <b
r>
> >(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 impa
ct
> on the IGP.<br>><br>>You are now tacitly agreeing with those who told y
o
> 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 configur
ed
> <br>>such that every selected P router is connected to at least two <br>&g
t
> ;other selected P routers and every PE router needs to be <br>>connected t
o
> at least two selected
> > P routers.<br>><br>>When you are done with this configuration, you a
re
> 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 <b
r>
> ><br>>>-----Original Message-----<br>>>From: Igor Bryskin [mai
lt
> 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>&g
t;
> >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>>>Subjec
t:
> Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd <br>>>questi
o
> n)<br>>><br>>>Are you calling me silly? Are you coming to Minneap
ol
> is?
> > :=)<br>>><br>>>Seriously, what is wrong in your opinion with t
hi
> s approach? <br>>>Many people are talking about multi-instance IGPs. Wh
at
> they have in <br>>>mind is improving the IGP scalability:<br>>>a)
> by removing non-IP advertisements from the instance of IGP that <br>>>m
an
> 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>>>I
n
> my opinion this is exactly what is needed for the OSPF-based L1VPN <br>>&g
t;
> application.<br>>><br>>>Igor<br>>><br>>><br>>><
br
> >>><br>>><br>>><br>>>----- Original Message ----<br>&
gt
> ;>From: "Drake, John E" <<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; h
re
> f="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>><br>>&
gt
> ;To: Igor Bryskin
> > <<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.c
om
> ">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>>; Yakov Rekhter <br>>><<a ymailto="mail
to
> :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="mai
lt
> o:yakov@juniper.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>
;;
> Adrian Farrel <br>>><<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="m
a
> ilto:adrian@olddog.co.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>>; <a ymailto="mailto:cca
mp
> @ops.ietf.org" href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <a ym
ai
> lto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ie
tf
> .org</a><br>>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:31:36 PM<br>>>Subje
ct
> : 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>&g
t;
> ><br>>>>-----Original Message-----<br>>>>From: Igor Brys
ki
> n [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yaho
o.
> 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>>>&
gt
> ;Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; hre
f=
> "mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <br>>>><a ymailt
o=
> "mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.o
rg
> </a><br>>>>Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwir
es
> 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 o
n
> the tunnel.<br>>>>Once you did that the local VPN information will b
e
> flooded<br>>>accross the<br>>>>overlay, likewise, the new PE w
il
> l get all the necessary information <br>>>>from other PEs.<br>>&g
t;
> ><br>>>>Cheers,<br>>>>Igor<br>>>><br>>>&g
t;
> <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 &
lt
> ;<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@jun
ip
> er.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>; Adrian Far
re
> l <br>>>><<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto:ad
ri
> an@olddog.co.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>>; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ie
tf
> .org" href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <a ymailto="ma
il
> to:softwires@ietf.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a
><
> br>>>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:20:16 AM<br>>>>Subje
ct
> : RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd<br>>>>q
ue
> stion)<br>>>><br>>>>Igor,<br>>>><br>>>>Do
es
> 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>>>&
gt
> ;John<br>>>><br>>>>>-----Original Message-----<br>>&g
t;
> >>From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; hr
ef
> ="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>]<br>>>>>Sen
t:
> Friday, August 29, 2008 5:51 AM<br>>>>>To: Yakov Rekhter; Lou Ber
g
> er<br>>>>>Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:cc
am
> 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@i
et
> 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 s
to
> res L1VPN routes on PEs that have sites of that VPN<br>>>connected<br>&
gt
> ;>>>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>>>&
gt
> ;>autodiscovery) results in storing *all VPN TE information <br>>for al
l
> the<br>>>>>VPNs* on *all* the IGP nodes, both P and PE. So, clear
ly
> 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>&g
t;
> >>using IPinIP<br>>>>>tunnels and run in this overlay an in
st
> 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>>>&
gt
> ;>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>&
gt
> ;>>distribution<br>>>>>of IP-related LSAs.<br>>>>&
gt
> ;<br>>>>>Regards,<br>>>>>Igor<br>>>>><br>
&g
> t;>>><br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>><br>>
;&
> gt;><br>>>><br>>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><b
r>
> ><br>><br>><br>><br><br></div></div></div><br>
> >
> > </body></html>
> > --0-1141253910-1220449648=:97601--
>
>
>
>
> --0-1852435290-1220452662=:19087
> 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>Yaokov,<br><br>Please, see in-line.<br></div><div style="font-
family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div style=
"font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">----- Original Mess
age ----<br>From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net><br>To: Igor Bryskin &
lt;i_bryskin@yahoo.com><br>Cc: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com&
gt;; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk
>; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; softwires@ietf.org<br>Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2
008 9:55:49 AM<br>Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires W
G (2nd question) <br><br>
> Igor,<br><br>> And I am not arguing that sufficient redundancy must be pro
vided. However you<br>> said:<br>> >For your suggested approach to wor
k with sufficient <br>> >redundancy, the topology of the overlay needs to
be configured <br>> >such that every selected P router is connected to a
t 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>>
If you just simply interconnect all VPN-aware PEs into a single<br>> ring vi
a IPin IP tunnels and run an instance of OSPF to distribute<br>> VPN-related
information between them, it will provide sufficient<br>> redundancy and in
volve exactly *zero* Ps.<br>><br>> So, I want you to drop your lecturing
tone for a minute and simply<br>> tell in what respect in your opinion this
approach is not perfect<br>> fo the L1VPN application. Otherwise, I am not i
nterested in
> this<br>> discussion any longer. I do like to hear comments from other pe
ople.<br><br>Since you asked, one problem with using OSPF, as John correctly<br
>pointed out, is that you are left with a situation in which *every* PE <br>rou
ter will have *all* L1VPN routes for all the L1VPNs. Of course, <br>this is "pe
rfect" in a sense that you can do no worse than that :-)<br><br>IB>> Ok.
Several points here. Note that neither Ps nor VPN-unaware PEs participate in th
e distribution/maintenance of VPN information, which is already significantly b
etter than what you said about the OSPF solution in your previous mail:<br><br>
>... And while on the subject of scaling, please keep in mind that BGP<br>&g
t; only stores L1VPN routes on PEs that have sites of that VPN<br>&
gt; connected to them, and on an RR if used, but *not* on any of th
e P <br>> routers. In contrast, rfc5252 (OSPF for L1VPN<br>>&
nbsp;
> autodiscovery) results in storing *all VPN TE information <br>> &nbs
p; for all the VPNs* on *all* the IGP nodes, both P and PE. So, clearly BGP-bas
ed <br>> approach scales better than OSPF-based approach.<br><br
>> >>>>Yakov.<br><br>I do agree that if you use a single ring ov
erlay interconnecting all VPN aware PEs you will have LSDBs at all PEs contain
VPN info about all VPNs. However, in case of L1VPN this is not VPN routes, rath
er VPN Provider-To-Customer port mappings which I believe will prove to be sugn
ifficantly smaller, so I am not sure yet how bad is that. In any case, if it do
es present a problem on a network with large number of VPNs, who said that it h
as to be a single overlay? Why not to configure several overlays - each contain
ing a single ring that interconnects PEs participating in a common sub-set of V
PNs, and run a seperate instance of OSPF in each overlay?<br><br>Igor<br><br><b
r> <br>>
> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ----- Original Message ----<br>> From
: "Drake, John E" <<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; href="mailto
:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com">John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>><br>> To: Igor Br
yskin <<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.
com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>>; Yakov Rekhter <<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@ju
niper.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>; Lo<br>u B
erger <<a ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="mailto:lberger@labn.net";>l
berger@labn.net</a>><br>> Cc: Yakov Rekhter <<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@
juniper.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>; Adrian
Farrel <<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto:adrian@olddog.c
o.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>>; c<br><a ymailto="mailto:camp@ops.ietf.org"; h
ref="mailto:camp@ops.ietf.org";>camp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <a ymailto="mailto:softwi
res@ietf.org"
> href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a><br>> Sent: Wednes
day, 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, because you<br>&
gt; are providing examples of the redundancy that I specified - every PE<br>>
; router needs to have connectivity to two other routers in the IGP<br>> ins
tance.<br>> <br>> Thanks,<br>> <br>> John <br>> <br>> >---
--Original Message-----<br>> >From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:<a ymailto="mail
to: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: Drak
e, John E; Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger<br>> >Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farr
el; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>cca
mp@ops.ietf.org</a>;
> <br>> ><a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@i
etf.org">softwires@ietf.org</a><br>> >Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE att
r last call by softwires WG <br>> >(2nd question)<br>> ><br>> &g
t;Hi John,<br>> ><br>> >I understand what you are saying and disagr
ee. The overlay I <br>> >am talking about logically is a separate network
and as any <br>> >network it should be sufficiently redundant to functio
n. There <br>> >is a number of ways how you can address the redundancy <b
r>> >concerns. Look at the examples below:<br>> ><br>> >a) in
terconnect all VPN-aware PEs into a single ring: <br>> >PE=======PE<br>&g
t; > || ||<br>
> >PE PE <br>> >||
||<br>> >
PE
> PE <br>> >|| &
nbsp; ||<br>> >...  
; ....<br>> >PE=======PE<br>> ><br>>
>b) connect each PE to two interconnected Ps <br>> ><br>> >PE&n
bsp; P &n
bsp; PE<br>> > &n
bsp; || &n
bsp; <br>> >PE &nb
sp; || PE <br>&g
t; > ||
<br>> >PE&
nbsp; ||
> PE <br>> > &nbs
p; || &nbs
p; <br>> >... &nbs
p; || ....<br>&
gt; >PE P &nbs
p; PE<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >
;Note that tunnels can traverse any number of VPN-unaware Ps and PEs.<br>> &
gt;<br>> >Igor<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >----- Original Messa
ge ----<br>> >From: "Drake, John E" <<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@
boeing.com" href="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>
><br>> >To: Igor Bryskin <<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; h
ref="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@jun
iper.net</a>>; Lou Berger <<a ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="mai
lto:lberger@labn.net">lberger@labn.net</a>><br>> >Cc: Yakov Rekhter &l
t;<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@j
uniper.net</a>>; Adrian Farrel <br>> ><<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@ol
ddog.co.uk" href="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk";>adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>>; <a y
mailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.i
etf.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:
26 PM<br>> >Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires W
G <br>> >(2nd question)<br>> ><br>> >Igor,<br>> ><br>&g
t; >Several years ago when OSPF was first proposed as an <br>> >autodi
scovery mechanism for
> L1VPNs, you were 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 you it was a bad idea.<br>> ><br>> >F
or your suggested approach to work with sufficient <br>> >redundancy, the
topology of the overlay needs to be configured <br>> >such that every se
lected P router is connected to at least two <br>> >other selected P rout
ers and every PE router needs to be <br>> >connected to at least two sele
cted P routers.<br>> ><br>> >When you are done with this configurat
ion, you are left with a <br>> >situation in which *every* PE and selecte
d P router will have <br>> >*all* L1VPN routes.<br>> ><br>> >
Thanks,<br>> ><br>> >John <br>> ><br>> >>-----Origin
al 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>> >>S
ent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:10 PM<br>> >>To: Drake, John E; Yakov
Rekhter; Lou Berger<br>> >>Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; <a ymailt
o="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.o
rg</a>; <br>> >><a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:so
ftwires@ietf.org">softwires@ietf.org</a><br>> >>Subject: Re: [Softwire
s] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd <br>> >>question)<br>>
; >><br>> >>Are you calling me silly? Are you coming to Minneapo
lis? :=)<br>> >><br>> >>Seriously, what is wrong in your opin
ion with this approach? <br>> >>Many people are talking about multi-in
stance IGPs. What they have in <br>> >>mind is improving the IGP scala
bility:<br>> >>a) by removing non-IP advertisements from the instance
of IGP that <br>>
> >>manages IP routing/forwarding tables into separate IGP instance(s);<
br>> >>b) by distributing non-IP information only to and via <br>>
>inerested parties <br>> >>leaving the bulk of Ps out of the proces
s.<br>> >><br>> >>In my opinion this is exactly what is neede
d for the OSPF-based L1VPN <br>> >>application.<br>> >><br>&g
t; >>Igor<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >
><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >>----- Original Message -
---<br>> >>From: "Drake, John E" <<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@
boeing.com" href="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>
><br>> >>To: Igor Bryskin <<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.co
m" 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.net";>lberger@labn.
net</a>><br>> >>Cc: Yakov Rekhter <<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juni
per.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>; Adrian Farr
el <br>> >><<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto:ad
rian@olddog.co.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>>; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ie
tf.org" href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <a ymailto="ma
ilto:softwires@ietf.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a
><br>> >>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:31:36 PM<br>> >>Subj
ect: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd <br>> >&g
t;question)<br>> >><br>> >>So you are proposing an OSPF route
reflector? At what point does the <br>> >>silliness stop?<br>&g
t; >><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
11:29 AM<br>> >>>To: Drake, John E; Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger<br>&
gt; >>>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 at
tr last call by softwires WG (2nd<br>> >>>question)<br>> >>
;><br>> >>>Hi John,<br>> >>><br>> >>>No,
not really. When you add a PE you configure local<br>> >>interfaces,
local<br>> >>>VPN port mappings, stuff like that. While doing this
you will also <br>>
> >>>configure an IPinIP tunnel to one of your spoke Ps and enable L1
VPN <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 will get all the necessar
y information <br>> >>>from other PEs.<br>> >>><br>>
>>>Cheers,<br>> >>>Igor<br>> >>><br>> >
>><br>> >>>----- Original Message ----<br>> >>>Fr
om: "Drake, John E" <<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; href="mail
to:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com">John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>><br>> >>&
gt;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.net";>lberger@labn.
net</a>><br>> >>>Cc: Yakov Rekhter <<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@
juniper.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>>; Adrian
Farrel <br>> >>><<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="m
ailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>>; <a ymailto="mailto:ccam
p@ops.ietf.org" href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; <a yma
ilto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@iet
f.org</a><br>> >>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 11:20:16 AM<br>>
>>>Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2n
d<br>> >>>question)<br>> >>><br>> >>>Igor,<
br>> >>><br>> >>>Doesn't this defeat auto-discovery?&nb
sp; 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>> >&g
t;>>Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:51 AM<br>> >>>>To: Yak
ov 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.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>>
; >>>>question)<br>> >>>><br>> >>>>Ya
kov,<br>>
> >>>><br>> >>>>You said:<br>> >>>><
br>> >>>><br>> >>>>... And while on the subject o
f scaling, please keep in mind<br>> >>that BGP<br>> >>>>
;only stores L1VPN routes on PEs that have sites of that VPN<br>> >>co
nnected<br>> >>>>to them, and on an RR if used, but *not* on any
of the P <br>> >routers. In <br>> >>>>contrast, rfc5252 (
OSPF for L1VPN<br>> >>>>autodiscovery) results in storing *all V
PN TE information <br>> >for all the<br>> >>>>VPNs* on *al
l* the IGP nodes, both P and PE. So, clearly BGP-based <br>> >>>>
;approach scales better than OSPF-based approach.<br>> >>>><br>&
gt; >>>>Yakov.<br>> >>>><br>> >>>>Thi
s is not true in case of multi-instance OSPF: one can build an <br>> >>
;>>overlay
> interconnecting PEs via one or small number of Ps<br>> >>>using
IPinIP<br>> >>>>tunnels and run in this overlay an instance of O
SPF specifically <br>> >>>>designated for distribution of L1VPN
information. In this<br>> >>>case the OSPF<br>> >>>>
solution won't scale any worse than the BGP approach. Note. <br>> >>&g
t;that rfc252<br>> >>>>never said that the instance of OSPF used
for flooding of the L1VPN <br>> >>>>information must be the sam
e instance that is used for the<br>> >>>distribution<br>> >&g
t;>>of IP-related LSAs.<br>> >>>><br>> >>>>
Regards,<br>> >>>>Igor<br>> >>>><br>> >>
>><br>> >>>><br>> >>>><br>> >>>
<br>> >>><br>> >>><br>> >>><br>> >>
;<br>>
> >><br>> >><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> >
;<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> --0-1141253910-122044
9648=:97601<br>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii<br>> <br>>
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;}
--></style></head><<br>body><div style="font-family:tim
es new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:<br>12pt"><div>And I am
not arguing that sufficient redundancy must be provided. Ho<br>wever you said:
<br>&gt;For your suggested approach to work with sufficient <br>
;<br>&gt;redundancy, the topology of the overlay needs to be configured <
;br>&gt;such<br> that every selected P router is connected to at least t
wo <br>&gt;other select<br>ed P routers and every PE router needs to
be <br>&gt;connected to at least two <br>selected P routers.<br>
;<br>If you just
> simply interconnect all VPN-aware PEs in<br>to a single ring via IPinIP tunn
els and run an instance of OSPF to distribute V<br>PN-related information betwe
en them, it will provide sufficient redundancy and <br>involve exactly *zero* P
s.<br>So, I want you to drop your lecturing tone for a <br>minute and sim
ply tell in what respect in your opinion this approach is not per<br>fect fo th
e L1VPN<br>> application. Otherwise, I am not interested in this discu
ssion any longer. I<br> do like to hear comments from other people.<br>&l
t;br>Igor <br><br></div><div sty<br>le="font-family: ti
mes new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><d<br>iv
style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">----- Orig
<br>inal Message ----<br>From: "Drake, John E" &lt;<a ymailto="mailto
:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"
> href="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>&gt;&
lt;br><br>To: Igor Bryskin &lt;<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; h
ref="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>&gt;; Yakov Rekhter
&lt;<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.n"; href="mailto:yakov@juniper.n";>yako
v@juniper.n</a><br>et&gt;; Lou Berger &lt;<a ymailto="mailto:lberger@la
bn.net" href="mailto:lberger@labn.net";>lberger@labn.net</a>&gt;<br>Cc
: Yakov Rekhter &lt;yakov@juni<br>per.net&gt;; Adrian Farrel &lt;<a
ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk";>adrian@
olddog.co.uk</a>&gt;; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:c
camp@ops.ietf.org">ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>; sof<br><a ymailto="mailto:twires@iet
f.org" href="mailto:twires@ietf.org";>twires@ietf.org</a><br>Sent: Wednesd
ay, September 3, 2008 8:10:07 AM<br>Subject: RE<br>: [Softwires] BGP TE a
ttr last call by
> softwires WG (2nd question)<br><br><br>> Igor,<br><b
r>Actually, I am not sure that you do understand what I wrote, bec<br>ause y
ou<br>are providing examples of the redundancy that I specified - every P
<br>E<br>router needs to have connectivity to two other routers in the IG
P<br>insta<br>nce.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>John <
;br><br>&gt;-----Original Message-----<br>&gt;F<br>rom:
Igor Bryskin [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.c
om" href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>" href="mailto:<br
><a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_br
yskin@yahoo.com</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_
bryskin@yahoo.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a></a>] <br>&gt;Sent: T
uesday, September <br>02, 2008 3:06 PM<br>&gt;To: Drake, John E; Yako
v Rekhter; Lou
> Berger<br>&gt;Cc:<br> Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto=
"mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";
>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>" href="mai<br>lto:<a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org
" href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>"><a ymailto="mailt
o:ccamp@ops.ietf.org" href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>&l
t;/a>; <br>&gt;<a ymailto="mailto:soft<br><a ymailto="mailto:wi
res@ietf.org" href="mailto:wires@ietf.org";>wires@ietf.org</a>" href="mailto:<a
ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@
ietf.org</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@
ietf.org">softwires@ietf.org</a></a><br>&gt;<br>Subject: Re: [S
oftwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG <br>&gt;(2nd que<br>s
tion)<br>&gt;<br>&gt;Hi John,<br>&gt;<br>&a
mp;gt;I understand
> what you are saying <br>and disagree. The<br>> overlay I <br>
&gt;am talking about logically is a separate network and as an<br>y <br&
gt;&gt;network it should be sufficiently redundant to function. There <b
r>&g<br>t;is a number of ways how you can address the redundancy <br&
gt;&gt;concerns. Look<br> at the examples below:<br>&gt;<br>
;&gt;a) interconnect all VPN-aware PEs into a<br> single ring: <br>&a
mp;gt;PE=======PE<br>&gt; ||&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbs
p; &nbsp; <br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ||<br>&
gt;PE&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbs<br>p; &
;nbsp; PE <br>&gt;||&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<br> &nbsp; ||<br>&
amp;gt;PE&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &
;nbsp; PE
> <br>&<br>gt;||&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbs
p; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ||<br>&gt;<br>..
.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &
amp;nbsp; ....<br>&gt;PE======<br>=PE<br>&gt;<br>&
;gt;b) connect each PE to two interconnected Ps <br>&gt;<br>&am
p;gt;<br>PE&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &a
mp;nbsp; P&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp<br>; &nbsp; &
;nbsp; &nbsp;<br>> &nbsp; PE<br>&gt;&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &
amp;n<br>bsp; &nbsp; ||&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbs
p; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <<br>br>&gt;PE&a
mp;nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 
; ||&nbsp;
> &nbsp; &nbs<br>p; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &n
bsp; &nbsp; PE <br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &n<br
>bsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ||&
nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &n<br>bsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &am
p;nbsp; &nbsp; <br>&gt;PE&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nb
sp; &nbsp; &<br>nbsp; &nbsp; ||&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbs
p; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <br>PE <
;br>&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp
; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp<br>; ||&nbsp; &nbsp; &
nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <br&
gt;&gt;...&<br>nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &n
bsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ||&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <br>&nb
sp; &nbsp;
> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ....<br>&gt;PE&a
mp;nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &<br>nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&
nbsp; P&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &n
bsp; &<br>nbsp; <br>> PE<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br
>&gt;Note that tunnels can traverse any number of VPN-u<br>naware Ps and
PEs.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;Igor<br>&gt;<br>&g
t;<br>&gt;----- Original Me<br>ssage ----<br>&gt;From: "Dra
ke, John E" &lt;<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@bo<br><a target="_blank
" href="http://eing.com";>eing.com</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.D
rake2@boeing.com" href="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>John.E.Drake2@boeing.c
om</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; href="mailto:John.E.Dra
ke2@boeing.com">John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a></a>&g<br>t;<br>&am
p;gt;To: Igor Bryskin
> &lt;<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="
mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>" href="ma<br>ilto:<a ymailt
o="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yaho
o.com</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@ya
hoo.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a></a>&gt;; Yakov Rekhter <br>&am
p;gt;&l<br>t;<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; hr
ef="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="m
ailto:yakov@juniper.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>"
>yakov@j<br><a target="_blank" href="http://uniper.net";>uniper.net</a></a
>&gt;; Lou Berger &lt;<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:lberg
er@labn.net" href="mailto:lberger@labn.net";>lberger@labn.net</a>" href="m<br>ai
lto:<a ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="mailto:lberger@labn.net";>lberger
@labn.net</a>"><a
> ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="mailto:lberger@labn.net";>lberger@lab
n.net</a></a>&gt;<br>&gt;Cc: Yakov Rekhter &lt;<<br>
a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@juni
per.net">yakov@juniper.net</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.n
et" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>">yakov@juni<br><a
target="_blank" href="http://per.net";>per.net</a></a>&gt;; Adrian Far
rel <br>&gt;&lt;<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@o
lddog.co" href="mailto:adrian@olddog.co";>adrian@olddog.co</a>.<br>uk" href="mai
lto:<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk";>a
drian@olddog.co.uk</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto
:adrian@olddog.co.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a></a>&gt;; <a<br>>&
nbsp; ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";
> href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>" href="mailto:<a yma
ilto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.iet
f.org</a>">ccamp@o<br><a target="_blank" href="http://ps.ietf.org";>ps.ietf.o
rg</a></a>; <a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";
href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a>" href="mailto:softwires
@<br><a target="_blank" href="http://ietf.org";>ietf.org</a>"><a ymailto="mai
lto:softwires@ietf.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a>
</a><br>&gt;Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 2:24:2<br>6 PM<
br>&gt;Subject: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG &l
t;br><br>&gt;(2nd question)<br>&gt;<br>&gt;Igor,<
br>&gt;<br>&gt;Several years ago when O<br>SPF was first propo
sed as an <br>&gt;autodiscovery mechanism for L1VPNs, you we<br>re to
ld that it was
> <br>&gt;a bad idea due to its scaling properties and impact<br> on
the IGP.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;You are now tacitly agreeing with
those who told yo<br>u it was a bad idea.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;Fo
r your suggested approach to work with su<br>fficient <br>&gt;redunda
ncy, the topology of the overlay needs to be configured<br> <br>&gt;s
uch that every selected P router is connected to at least two <br>&gt
<br>;other selected P routers and every PE router needs to be <br>&gt
;connected to <br>at least two selected<br>> P routers.<br>&
gt;<br>&gt;When you are done with this configuration, you are<br> lef
t with a <br>&gt;situation in which *every* PE and selected P router
will h<br>ave <br>&gt;*all* L1VPN routes.<br>&gt;<br>
&gt;Thanks,<br>&gt;<br>&gt;John
> <br><br>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;-----Original Message-----&l
t;br>&gt;&gt;From: Igor Bryskin [mailt<br>o:<a ymailto="mailto:<a
ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_brysk
in@yahoo.com</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="ma
ilto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>">i_b<br><a ymailto="mailto
:ryskin@yahoo.com" href="mailto:ryskin@yahoo.com";>ryskin@yahoo.com</a></a>
;]<br>&gt;&gt;Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:10 PM<br>&am
p;gt;<br>&gt;To: Drake, John E; Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berger<br>&gt;
&gt;Cc: Yakov Rekhter; <br>Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto=
"mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org
</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ie"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ie";>
ccamp@ops.ie</a><br><a target="_blank" href="http://tf.org";>tf.org</a>"><a
> ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@o
ps.ietf.org</a></a>; <br>&gt;&gt;<a ymailto="mailto:<a y
mailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.o"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.o";>softwires@ietf.
o</a><br>rg" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:s
oftwires@ietf.org">softwires@ietf.org</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf
.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a></a><br&g
t;&gt;&gt;Subject:<br> Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwir
es WG (2nd <br>&gt;&gt;questio<br>n)<br>&gt;&gt;<
;br>&gt;&gt;Are you calling me silly? Are you coming to Minneapol<br
>is?<br>> :=)<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;Serio
usly, what is wrong in your opinion with thi<br>s approach? <br>&gt;&
amp;gt;Many people are talking about multi-instance IGPs. What<br> they have in
> <br>&gt;&gt;mind is improving the IGP scalability:<br>&a
mp;gt;&gt;a) <br>by removing non-IP advertisements from the instance of IGP
that <br>&gt;&gt;man<br>ages IP routing/forwarding tables into s
eparate IGP instance(s);<br>&gt;&gt;b) <br>by distributing non-IP
information only to and via <br>&gt;inerested parties <b<br>r>
&gt;&gt;leaving the bulk of Ps out of the process.<br>&gt;&am
p;gt;<br>&gt;&gt;In <br>my opinion this is exactly what is needed
for the OSPF-based L1VPN <br>&gt;&gt;<br>application.<br>&
amp;gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;Igor<br>&gt;&gt;<br&g
t;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br<br>>&gt;&gt;<b
r>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;-----
Original Message ----<br>&gt<br>;&gt;From: "Drake, John E" &l
t;<a
> ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; href="mailto:Jo
hn.E.Drake2@boeing.com">John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>" hre<br>f="mailto:<a ymail
to="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; href="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>Joh
n.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; href
="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a></a>&g
t;<br>&gt;&gt<br>;To: Igor Bryskin<br>> &lt;<a ym
ailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@ya
hoo.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yah
oo.com" href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a><br>"><a ym
ailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@
yahoo.com</a></a>&gt;; Yakov Rekhter <br>&gt;&gt;&l
t;<a ymailto="mailto<br>:<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";
> href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>" href="mailto:<a ymail
to="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net
</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>
yakov@juniper.net</a></a>&gt;; <br>Lou Berger &lt;<a ymailto="
mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="mailto:lberger@labn.net";>lber
ger@labn.net</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.n"; href="mailto:
lberger@labn.n">lberger@labn.n</a><br>et"><a ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.ne
t" href="mailto:lberger@labn.net";>lberger@labn.net</a></a>&gt;<br&
gt;&gt;&gt;Cc: Yakov Rekhter &lt;<a ymailto="mailt<br>o:<a ymail
to="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net
</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@jun
iper.net">yakov@juniper.net</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";
> href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a></a>&gt;;<br>
Adrian Farrel <br>&gt;&gt;&lt;<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymail
to="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk";>adrian@olddog
.co.uk</a>" href="ma<br>ilto:<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mail
to:adrian@olddog.co.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:adrian@o
lddog.co.uk" href="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk";>adrian@olddog.co.uk</a></a>
;&gt;; <a ymailto="mailto:ccamp<br>@ops.ietf.org" href="mailto:<a ymailt
o="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.o
rg</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.o
rg">ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a></a>; <a ymai<br>lto="mailto:<a ymailto="mai
lto:softwires@ietf.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a>
" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";
> href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a>">softwires@ietf<b
r>.org</a><br>&gt;&gt;Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:31:36
PM<br>&gt;&gt;Subject<br>: RE: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call
by softwires WG (2nd<br>> <br>&gt;&gt;question)<br&g
t;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;So you are proposing an OSPF ro<br>
ute reflector?&nbsp; At what point does the <br>&gt;&gt;silli
ness stop?<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;-----
Original Message-----<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;From: Igor Bryski<br>n [
mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mail
to:i_bryskin@yahoo.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>" href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.<
br>com"><a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo
.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a></a>]<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Sent:
Friday, August 29,
> 2008 11:2<br>9 AM<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;To: Drake, John E; Yakov
Rekhter; Lou Berger<br>&gt;&gt;&gt<br>;Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adr
ian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="
mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>" href=<br>"mailto:<a ymailto=
"mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org
</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org
">ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a></a>; <br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<a yma
ilto=<br>"mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@
ietf.org">softwires@ietf.org</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:softwires@iet
f.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a>"><a ymailto="
mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org<
/a><br></a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP
TE attr last call by
> softwires<br> WG (2nd<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;question)<br>&a
mp;gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Hi John,<br>&
g<br>t;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;No, not really. When y
ou add a PE you configure<br>> local<br>&gt;&gt;interfac
es, local<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;VPN port mappings, stuff l<br>ike th
at. While doing this you will also <br>&gt;&gt;&gt;configure
an IPinIP tu<br>nnel to one of your spoke Ps and enable L1VPN <br>&gt
;&gt;&gt;OSPF instance on <br>the tunnel.<br>&gt;&gt;&
;gt;Once you did that the local VPN information will be <br>flooded<br>&a
mp;gt;&gt;accross the<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;overlay, likewise, t
he new PE wil<br>l get all the necessary information <br>&gt;&gt;
&gt;from other
> PEs.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;
Cheers,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Igor<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;
<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;----- O
riginal Message ----<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;From: "Drake, John E<br>"
&lt;<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; hre
f="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com";>John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a>" href="mailto:
John.E.Drake2@b<br><a target="_blank" href="http://oeing.com";>oeing.com</a>">
;<a ymailto="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com"; href="mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing
.com">John.E.Drake2@boeing.com</a></a>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&
amp;gt;To: Igor Bryskin &lt<br>;<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_
bryskin@yahoo.com" href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>" h
ref="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";
> href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>">i_br<br><a yma
ilto="mailto:yskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:yskin@yahoo.com";>yskin@yahoo.com</a>
</a>&gt;; Yakov Rekhter <br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&lt;<
;a ymailto="mailto:y<br><a ymailto="mailto:akov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:akov@
juniper.net">akov@juniper.net</a>"<br>> href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailt
o:yakov@juniper.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>">
<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@jun
iper.net</a></a>&gt;; Lou Berger &lt;<a<br> ymailto="mailto:<a
ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="mailto:lberger@labn.net";>lberger@labn.
net</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:lberger@labn.net"; href="mailto:lberger
@labn.net">lberger@labn.net</a>">lberger@labn.<br>net</a>&gt;<b
r>&gt;&gt;&gt;Cc: Yakov Rekhter &lt;<a ymailto="mailto:ya
kov@junip<br><a
> target="_blank" href="http://er.net";>er.net</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="ma
ilto:yakov@juniper.net" href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@juniper.net</a>"&
gt;<a ymailto="mailto:yakov@juniper.net"; href="mailto:yakov@juniper.net";>yakov@
juniper.net</a></a>&gt;; Adrian Farre<br>l <br>&gt;&gt;
&gt;&lt;<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; h
ref="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk";>adrian@olddog.co.uk</a>" href="mailto:adri<br>
<a ymailto="mailto:an@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto:an@olddog.co.uk";>an@olddog.co.
uk</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk"; href="mailto:adrian@olddog.c
o.uk">adrian@olddog.co.uk</a></a>&gt;; <a ymailto="mailto:<a ymail
to="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf";>ccamp@ops.ietf</a><br>.
org" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops
.ietf.org">ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";
> href="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a></a>; <a yma
ilto="mail<br>to:<a ymailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@
ietf.org">softwires@ietf.org</a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:softwires@iet
f.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a>"><a ymailto="
mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org<
/a></a><<br>br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Sent: Friday, August 29, 200
8 11:20:16 AM<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Subject<br>: RE: [Softwires] BGP
TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;que<br
>stion)<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Igor
,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Does<br>n'
t this defeat auto-discovery?&nbsp; I.e., how is a new PE <br>&gt
;added to a <br><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;given<br>>
> L1VPN?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;Th
anks,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt<br>;Jo
hn<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;-
----Original Message-----<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;From: Ig
or Bryskin [mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com
" href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a>" href<br>="mailto:<
a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com";>i_brys
kin@yahoo.com</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com"; href="mailto:i_br
yskin@yahoo.com">i_bryskin@yahoo.com</a></a>]<br>&gt;&gt;&a
mp;gt;&gt;Sent:<br> Friday, August 29, 2008 5:51 AM<br>&gt;&g
t;&gt;&gt;To: Yakov Rekhter; Lou Berg<br>er<br>&gt;&gt;&a
mp;gt;&gt;Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Adrian Farrel; <a ymailto="mailto:ccam<br><
a
> ymailto="mailto:p@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:p@ops.ietf.org";>p@ops.ietf.org<
/a>" href="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; href="mailto:ccamp@ops
.ietf.org">ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a>"><a ymailto="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org"; hr
ef="mailto:ccamp@ops.ietf.org";>ccamp@ops.ietf.org</a></a>; <br>&
;g<br>t;&gt;&gt;&gt;<a ymailto="mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:softwi
res@ietf.org" href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@ietf.org</a>" href="ma
ilto:softwires@iet<br><a target="_blank" href="http://f.org";>f.org</a>"><a y
mailto="mailto:softwires@ietf.org"; href="mailto:softwires@ietf.org";>softwires@i
etf.org</a></a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Subject: Re: [So
ftwires] BGP T<br>E attr last call by softwires WG
> (2nd<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;question)<br>&gt;&am
p;gt;&<br>gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Yakov,<br
>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Y
ou sa<br>id:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt
;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;... And while on<br>
the subject of<br>> scaling, please keep in mind<br>&gt;&am
p;gt;that BGP<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;only sto<br>res L1VPN ro
utes on PEs that have sites of that VPN<br>&gt;&gt;connected<b
r>&gt<br>;&gt;&gt;&gt;to them, and on an RR if used, but *no
t* on any of the P <br>&gt;r<br>outers. In <br>&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;contrast, rfc5252 (OSPF for L1VPN<br>&gt;&gt;&
;gt<br>;&gt;autodiscovery) results in storing *all VPN TE information <b
r>&gt;for all
> <br>the<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;VPNs* on *all* the IGP node
s, both P and PE. So, clearly<br> BGP-based <br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&
amp;gt;approach scales better than OSPF-based approach.<br><br>&gt;&a
mp;gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Yakov.<br>
;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&<br>gt;&gt;
This is not true in case of multi-instance OSPF: one can build an <br>&am
p;g<br>t;&gt;&gt;&gt;overlay interconnecting PEs via one or small n
umber of Ps<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;using IPinIP<br>&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;tunnels and run in this overlay an inst<br>ance of OSPF
specifically <br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;designated for distribu
tion of L1<br>VPN information. In<br>> this<br>&gt;&gt;&
amp;gt;case the OSPF<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;solution won't sc
ale an<br>y worse than
> the BGP approach. Note. <br>&gt;&gt;&gt;that rfc252<br&
gt;&gt;&gt;&gt<br>;&gt;never said that the instance of OSPF use
d for flooding of the L1VPN <br>&g<br>t;&gt;&gt;&gt;infor
mation must be the same instance that is used for the<br>&gt<br>;&
;gt;&gt;distribution<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;of IP-related
> LSAs.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt<br>;<br>&gt;&gt
;&gt;&gt;Regards,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Igor<br&g
t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&g<br>t;&gt;&gt;&gt
;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&a
mp;gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&<br>gt;&gt;&
lt;br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&a
mp;gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br><br
>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br><br
></div></div></div><br><br>> <br>>  
; </body></html><br>> --0-1141253910-1220449648=:97601--
<br></div></div></div><br>
>
>
>
> </body></html>
> --0-1852435290-1220452662=:19087--
>