Hi Frank, What I would like to see is the ability to use TE without VPN's. I do not want to be forced to deploy VPN infrastructure in this case. RSVP-TE is an important piece of the puzzle as it provides the ability to steer traffic based upon policy that I may wish to enforce. I would be happy to supply text for the draft but would like to agree on this alias before doing so ..
On 3/27/11 7:53 AM, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >Jim, > >why is VPN "overkill" (kind of delicate wording these days...)? TE could >also be combined with MPLS VPNs. > >Would also be interested in other folks' thoughts on the need for >"plain" IP-over-MPLS tunnels. > >Thanks, Frank > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jim Guichard [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 8:03 PM >> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-list-02 >> >> VPN is overkill imho plus i want the ability to engineer traffic paths >> and for this i need TE >> >> Jim Guichard >> >> Principal Networking Architect >> IPG CTO Office >> Juniper Networks >> >> CCIE #2069 >> >> Sent from my iphone >> >> On Mar 25, 2011, at 5:17, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi Jim, >> > >> > fully agreed that MPLS should not be absent from the draft, and it >is >> > not. The current draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-list-03 doesn't >> > restrict things to IP tunneling. The draft already allows for MPLS >> > transport between Gateway and AFTR using MPLS VPNs. >> > >> > Hence the question: For the use cases you have in mind, couldn't we >> just >> > use MPLS VPNs (possibly even point-to-point with just two PEs in a >> VPN - >> > Gateway and the AFTR)? Personally I've nothing against additional >> > encapsulations, though so far there's always been a push in the WG >> (and >> > also in 3GPP SA2) to keep the number of encapsulations to a minimum >> > (e.g. L2TPv3 was dropped from the list of encaps, because we could >do >> > the very same thing with GRE). >> > >> > On multicast: Don't fully follow your thought below. Do you consider >> > running multicast over the softwire between AFTR and Gateway? The >> > multicast considerations for GI-DS-lite (see >> > draft-brockners-softwire-mcast-gi-ds-lite-00) so far assume that >this >> > would not be the case. >> > >> > Thanks, Frank >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Jim Guichard [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:43 PM >> >> >> >> Hi Frank, >> >> >> >> bi-directional tunnels are necessary if you wish for traffic flows >> to >> >> take >> >> the same path in both directions across the network. It is possible >> to >> >> use >> >> point-to-point but this is cumbersome to deploy. >Point-to-multipoint >> >> may >> >> be necessary for multicast. >> >> >> >> Clearly IP-in-MPLS tunneling is a fundamental requirement that >> should >> >> not >> >> be absent from the draft. If an operator has MPLS why restrict them >> to >> >> IP >> >> tunneling? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> to kick-start the discussion, could you outline the usage >scenarios >> >> that >> >>> would drive the requirements you mention below? >> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
