Re: [PWE3] PWE3 question

[Luca Martini <luca@level3.net>]

Shahram Davari wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> Also one of the problems of LDP is that you are forced to use 
> per-platform label space, which reduces scalability.
> 
> I don't think LDP should be made mandatory in PWE3.
> 


What we need to make mandatory is not modifying the underling network.
That is in the charter, Hence we argue the charter , or the case is closed.

"PWE3 protocols and implementation focus on the edge-to-edge emulation and 
maintenance of service-specific pseudo-wires. Creation and placement of the 
tunnels is outside of the scope."
When we wrote this , it was clearly argued by Scott , that we should not modify 
every network element in the path to achieve our goal. This , can of course be 
done , but you should take it to PPVPN.


A very good principle to follow is to avoid having customer specific state in 
the core network. Simple core , intelligent edge. the staking model used by 
IGP/BGP  or MPLS/IGP/BGP, where the IGP does not know about customer routes.


A certain vendor, implemented RSVP-TE to transport L2 frames for the only 
reason that , at the time , they did not have label stacking capabilities. Why 
would you, or anyone argue for this now ?

Luca


>  
> 
> -Shahram
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Gregory Wright [mailto:gwright@nortelnetworks.com]
>     Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 7:46 AM
>     To: 'Andy Malis'
>     Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
>     Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question
> 
>     Andy, one could hardly call a flat fully meshed control plane as
>     having "great scaling properties". LDP works only in a shared trunk
>     environment. If a provider desires to offer both a shared trunk
>     service and a "more rigid" unstacked TE LSP based service why should
>     we not allow it?
> 
> 
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Andy Malis [mailto:Andy.Malis@VivaceNetworks.com]
>     Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 8:10 PM
>     To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com;
>     Sasha@axerra.com
>     Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
>     Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question
> 
> 
>     Neil,
>      
>     The point is that LDP used in extended discovery mode for this
>     application works perfectly and has great scaling properties.  So why
>     specify the necessary changes to anything else?  Interoperability is
>     enhanced by choosing one way to do things, especially when it just
>     works
>     so well - this reduces implementation and testing costs for vendors,
>     and
>     also reduces both capital and operational costs for service providers.
>     Capital costs are obvious - operational costs because there's less
>     interoperability testing the SPs have to do in their own labs, and
>     fewer
>     protocols they have to learn how to provision, operate, and
>     troubleshoot.
>      
>     Cheers,
>     Andy
> 
>             -----Original Message-----
>             From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
>             Sent: Thu 5/9/2002 18:49
>             To: Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com; Sasha@axerra.com; Andy Malis
>             Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
>             Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question
>            
>            
> 
>             Interesting point Shahram.....I'd also like to know why LDP
>     seems to be the
>             only signalling prtocol that seems to be sanctioned by
>     some......for example
>             draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-09.txt says 'static' MAY be
>     used, but if
>             signalled it MUST be via LDP.  I can see the VC_LSP is just
>     1-hop = single
>             link-connection of the client trail, so is it just 'because it
>     might be
>             easiest/cheapest'....or are there any other reasons for this?
>     And
>             specifically, *why* is any other form of VC LSP signalling
>     postively
>             disallowed?
>            
>             regards, Neil
>            
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     pwe3 mailing list
>     pwe3@ietf.org
>     https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 



_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3