Subject: Re: [L1vpn] draft-li-l1vpn-enhanced-mode-analysis-00.txt

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:24:39 +0100

dan

you wrote

    In this service model, no provider network routing information is
    leaked to CEs, only CE-PE TE link routing information is carried
    through the backbone. The size of such routing information is
    relatively small, but if the customers need to form routing adjacency
    between CEs over CE-CE connections in order to exchange customer site
    routing information, it may cause up to N-square routing adjacencies
    between CEs (if a full mesh was aimed at). So in this situation,
    scalability may become an issue.

indeed ... but the first issue is to know when CE's are IP/MPLS LSRs 
whether they are willing to accommodate an adjacency with their attached 
PE's to prevent such effect - there is another aspect to take into 
account the CE-to-CE adj. in a pure overlay is an IP adj. while in the 
VPN context it is far from clear whether the CE-PE routing adj. will be 
used to exchange other information than L1VPN membership, CE-PE TE link 
information, etc. ... in brief, the extended model also considering 
unification of the routing instance at the CE level and not only between 
the client and the network ?

-d.
Dan Li wrote:

> Dear WGs,
>  
> I’ve posted a new draft which presents detailed information with respect to the four sub-models of the L1VPN enhanced mode.
>  
> Comments are very welcome.
>  
> Thanks,
> 
> Dan
>  
> Abstracts:
> 
> This document presents detailed information with respect to the four sub-models of the Layer One Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) enhanced mode. Each sub-model is evaluated from different points of view, such as Topology Confidentiality, scalability, and reliability. The requirements on GMPLS to support each sub-model of the L1VPN enhanced mode are also discussed in this document.
>  
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-li-l1vpn-enhanced-mode-analysis-00.txt
> 
> 
> Dan Li
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> L1vpn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn

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

---

From: Dan Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:38:55 -0800

Dimitri,

See below.

Regards,

Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "dimitri papadimitriou" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dan Li" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [L1vpn] draft-li-l1vpn-enhanced-mode-analysis-00.txt

> PE's to prevent such effect - there is another aspect to take into account 
> the CE-to-CE adj. in a pure overlay is an IP adj. while in the VPN context 
> it is far from clear whether the CE-PE routing adj. will be used to 
> exchange other information than L1VPN membership, CE-PE TE link 

Yes, you're right.
From customer's perspective if they want to exchange the
customer site routing information over CE-CE connections, this may casue
the N-Square issue. But I am not sure if the extended model needs to 
consider
the unification of the routing instance at the CE  level.

>
> -d.
> Dan Li wrote:
>
>> Dear WGs,
>>  I’ve posted a new draft which presents detailed information with respect 
>> to the four sub-models of the L1VPN enhanced mode.
>> This document presents detailed information with respect to the four 
>> sub-models of the Layer One Virtual Private Network (L1VPN) enhanced 
>> mode. Each sub-model is evaluated from different points of view, such as 
>> Topology Confidentiality, scalability, and reliability. The requirements 
>> on GMPLS to support each sub-model of the L1VPN enhanced mode are also 
>> discussed in this document.