RE: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations

["NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <mnapierala at att.com>]

Yakov,

>There is a way to support BSR without using MI-PMSI. As I mentioned
>in my reply to Eric's original e-mail, supporting BSR without MI-PMSI
>has been explained in the presentation at the L3VPN WG meeting. The
>authors of 

>I agree that BSR certainly has to be supported. But that does not 
>mean that supporting BSR requires MI-PMSI.

OK. Is there more information about the specifics of this BSR support? 

Maria

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov at juniper.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 3:00 PM
To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS
Cc: Thomas Morin; l3vpn at ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations 

Maria,

> Hi Thomas,
> thanks for the reply. See my responses in-line.

see in-line...

> Maria 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Morin [mailto:thomas.morin at orange-ftgroup.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:01 PM
> To: NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS
> Cc: Ron Bonica; l3vpn at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations
> 
> Hi Maria,
> 
> NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS wrote:
> > The draft is a very good start but there are still some outstanding
> > mandatory design aspects that need to be addressed: 
> > - support of non-static RP solutions like BSR. There are current
large
> > MVPNs in SP network that use BSR
> 
> I agree (see reply to Eric) that our draft can mention BSR support.
> There is only one currently proposed approach for BSR support,
applying
> to both the Full PIM peering approach and the BGP approach, so there
> isn't that much to "compare", but the current requirement for MI-PMSI
> for BSR support, even in the case where BGP is used for C-multicast
> routing, has to be mentioned.
> 
> <maria> yes, I agree. The need for MI-PMSI should be stated as the
only
> currently available solution for BSR. 

There is a way to support BSR without using MI-PMSI. As I mentioned
in my reply to Eric's original e-mail, supporting BSR without MI-PMSI
has been explained in the presentation at the L3VPN WG meeting. The
authors of 

> Since there are existing MVPN
> deployments that use BSR, it needs to be supported.

I agree that BSR certainly has to be supported. But that does not 
mean that supporting BSR requires MI-PMSI.

> > - what is still missing in this draft as well as in RFC4834 is the
> > requirement to support PIM Bidir on CE-PE links. This requirement is
> > coming, e.g., from large financial firms for which using PIM-SM for
> > certain business critical applications does not scale. Not to
mention
> > the SP :-))
> > - support of "PIM-like" Anycast-RP by allowing multiple RP's to send
> > traffic in parallel 
> 
> The two points above would look to me as belonging to the mvpn
> requirement document (RFC4834). 
> 
> <maria> actually, those requirements are already stated in
> draft-mnapierala-mvpn-part-reqt-00.
> 
> The requirement for CE-PE bidir-PIM is actually already in that
> document. 
> 
> <maria> that's true but RFC4834 only "recommends" PIM-Bidir support on
> PE-CE interfaces. The draft-mnapierala-mvpn-part-req makes it a
> requirement. We have many large VPN customers requiring it.

Changing "recommends" to something else has to do with changing
rfc4834, not with draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations.
  
Yakov.