Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts,

[IJsbrand Wijnands <ice at cisco.com>]

> > From: "RAMACHANDRAN, PRASANNA, ATTOPS" <prasanna at att.com>
> >
> > I vote NO.
> > Being in AT&T Advanced Tier support group and having supported the  
> > MVPN
> > core for the last 2 years, I can clearly say that we need a solution
> > such as PIM-BiDir that can reduce the number of multicast states  
> > in the
> > PEs to be able to scale the Groups X Sources x OILs explosion for our
>
> Hold up, wait a minute.
>
> How does PIM-BiDir fix any of this? In mVPN, the number of PIM

You may want to read up on the proposals AT&T has been submitting to  
IETF before drawing conclusions.

> adjacencies does not scale in any large network. How is this better  
> when
> each individual PE router must establish a PIM adjacency to every  
> OTHER
> single PE router per VPN in a network?

Please check out the MS-PMSI proposal.

> Secondly, BGP is the right place to address scale of this nature.  
> Just like
> you mentioned, BGP handles millions of routes today. Though I  
> wonder, is that
> all on a single route reflector? My guess is, those 2 million VPNv4  
> routes are
> spread across multiple routers. The same design could apply here  
> where you could
> have separate routers just handling mVPN information.

PIM does not need route reflectors to make the protocol scale,...

Thx,

Ice.

> > "This email and any files transmitted with it are AT&T property, are
>
> You probably want to turn that off when sending to a mailing list.
>
>
> As for my vote, I support it just like I support Obama.
>
>
> Calvin "Snoop" Broadus Jr.
>      =Still G.R.E.=