Subject: [mpls] BGP P2MP

From: Satoru Matsushima <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:23:33 +0900

All,

I had presented BGP P2MP in monday MPLS WG meeting.
I want to add some important notes that help more understanding
about our proposal.

BGP is only protocol which support both of routing policy and  
carrying label.
This means that if network operators want to LSP along their routing  
policy,
they can achieve such LSP by rich policy function in BGP.
Such as LOCAL_PREF, MED, AS_PATH, etc for best path selection and
COMMUNITY attributes import/export policy.
Almost operators must familiar these policy function because the  
Internet
and the BGP/MPLS-VPN needs routing policy to operate correctly.

In the case of P2MP, we have RSVP P2MP-TE and mLDP in IETF.
These are good news to operator because they can choose case by case.
P2MP-TE has source route function to get most strict P2MP tree,  
that's good.
mLDP has function to get easy RPF based P2MP tree, that's good too.

I have question to operators. Why not routing policy base P2MP-LSP?

I believe that routing policy base path is most familiar and most  
controllable
for me because I can make primary path and some subsequent paths which
along my routing policy.
It would be nice if we can get P2MP tree that along routing policy  
basis!
We can also prepare backup branch LSR by routing policy, also egress and
ingress.

In current version of my draft has some use cases because I thought that
these use cases would help to understand the needs of BGP P2MP.
However, I found that these show one side of BGP P2MP capability to  
solve
some problem. The essence of our BGP P2MP proposal is routing policy  
basis
to build P2MP tree.

So, I want to hear what do you think.

Regards,

--
Satoru Matsushima

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls