Subject: Re: [L1vpn] Autodiscovery Protocol

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:45:22 +0200

eduard:

>>>>o) time - depending on need's importance vs urgency, if dynamic PTI 
>>>>tables population is to be there in a couple of month, or in a couple of 
>>>>years (would like to point out that understimating the time it may take
>>>>to convince l1/trans networks to make use of BGP may be impacting)
>>>
>>>I think I understand the timing issue, but what is the specific
>>>'problem' with BGP in relation to L1 transport network? 
>>>(with BGP being used for the purpose of discovery)
>>
>>afaik, there is no large "install base" as for IP/MPLS (L3VPN) 
> 
> Okay, but debatable. there is probably no large base of anything in this
> area.

at least creating a small install base took some time ;-)

picking your words if there is no large control plane deployment in the 
L1 networks can we assume that L1VPN would become a real driver for such 
large scale deployment ? and by when ?

>>>>o) cost - can be seen both ways is there a need to have a single 
>>>>protocol for LxVPN (x = 1, 2, 3) or is there a need to have a single 
>>>>protocol for L1/TE operations ? so it depends whether operators are 
>>>>looking for integrating their TE operations (including VPN 
>>>>or not) or VPN operations (including TE or not);
>>>
>>>Possibly both .. the same/similar protocols for VPN (L1,2,3..) and for
>>>TE (L1,2,3..). I'm not the same protocols for VPN and TE is that obvious,
>>>the applications are very different.
>>
>>because there is a need to have some characterization of the CE-PE links 
>>(in part. if dual homing like discussed during last L1VPN is going to be 
>>part of the ref.architecture)
>>
>>>>o) perf - concerning the protocol perf. we're discussing path vector vs 
>>>>link-state protocol so impact/properties are different by nature but TE 
>>>>processing overhead/impact would be worth investigated (note that this 
>>>>depends on the problem statement e.g. what would be the impact of 
>>>>progressively incorporating TE specific mechanisms for L1(VPN) into BGP 
>>>>if such need is identifed ?) 
>>>
>>>How is L1VPN discovery related to TE (path computation?) these seem not 
>>>related to me.
>>
>>this has been discussed during ietf63 also, having CPI-PPI information 
>>delivers a set of reachable end-points only but the CE-PE links have TE 
>>attributes like any other links that are to be taken into account by the 
>>ingress PE for correctly route the request and reach (one out of the 
>>possible) egress PE
> 
> I understand, is the idea to combine both in the auto-discovery
> mechanism?

yes -

> cheers,
> 	Eduard
> .

_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 22:55:49 +0200

I wasn't at the meeting, so my apologies for possibly going over topics
that have been discussed already ...

> > TE (L1,2,3..). I'm not the same protocols for VPN and TE is that
> > obvious, the applications are very different.
> 
> >>progressively incorporating TE specific mechanisms for 
> >>L1(VPN) into BGP if such need is identifed ?) 
> > 

cheers,
	Eduard