RE: Please comment draft-kulmala-l3vpn-aggregation-pe-00

["Kulmala, Marko" <marko.kulmala at tellabs.com>]

Robert,

In option B there is label switched path leading from a packet's ingress
PE to its egress PE as explicitly stated in RFC2547bis chapter 10 b).

Or are you saying that there is error in RFC2547bis ? I think it is
correct and that the LSP is the one that is  established by BGP VPN
label distribution. Right ?

Marko

> -----Original Message-----
> From: l3vpn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces at ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
> Sent: 8. maaliskuuta 2005 16:02
> To: Kulmala, Marko
> Cc: Fang, Luyuan, ALABS; l3vpn at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Please comment draft-kulmala-l3vpn-aggregation-pe-00
> 
> Marko,
> 
> > Option B requires that there is a label switched path 
> leading from a 
> > packet's ingress PE to its egress PE as stated in 
> RFC2547bis. There is 
> > no IP layer forwarding at ASBR. In my mind that is then the 
> same mpls 
> > domain, but word "domain" may mean different things to us.
> 
> Nope ... LSP terminates when the next hop is being changed. 
> In option B ASBRs change next hops on the vpnv4 routes so LSP 
> terminates there. The LSP switching looks like:
> 
> PEing --- ASBR --- ASBR ---- PEegr
> 
> or
> 
> PEing --- ASBR --------------PEegr
> 
> depending on how you deal with next hop configuration on ASBRs.
> 
> In option C indeed there is no next hop change across domains 
> and one could say that it requires inter-mpls LSP to work 
> between ing & egr PEs.
> 
> Let me also point out that MPLS LSP is not a must requirement for any
> 2547 inter-as (or intra as) transport. You can easily 
> substitute it with IP tunnels which therefor would not 
> require any MPLS state in the domain chain of PE-PE path.
> 
> > But anyways there is LSP connectivity between routers in 
> different ASes.
> > As stated earlier I think that what we propose would give better 
> > isolation than option B.
> 
> I think I still haven't seen why option A is not sufficient 
> then if strong intra-domain isolation is a requirement ? It 
> seems to me it is very close to what you are proposing ... 
> especially when draft provides an example of the complete 
> modifications to the RD & RTs.
> 
> Cheers,
> R.
> 
> 
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================