hi robert,

why does it matter wether router 'F' is MPLS enabled or not ?
IMO all that is required is that router 'C' 'generates'
a labeled route for router 'F' (NH: router C) as soon as the
BGP session between C and F comes up. -

i.e. just local router C implementation -
no new protocol extensions required for making this work at all.

tx,

/hannes

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:20:56AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
|    *Hi Robin,*
| 
|         +---------+      +------+
|         |         |      |      |
|         |    H    B------D      G
|         |         | +---/| AS 2 |\  +------+
|         |         |/     +------+ \ |      |---L/8
|         A   AS1   C---+            \|      |
|         |         |\\  \  +------+ /| AS 4 |---M/8
|         |         | \\  +-E      |/ +------+
|         |    X    |  \\   |      K
|         |         |   +===F AS 3 |
|         +---------+       +------+
| 
|      The router F in AS 3 will change itself as the Next-hop and allocate a
|      new BGP label for the destination prefix L/8, then send it to the router
|      C, eg., using a new label: 5002
| 
|    *Not quite right. Router F is not a MPLS router. It just uses plain
|    IPv4/IPv6 forwarding. Please read this in the draft:
|    "o  The solution MUST apply to the Internet use-case where the Internet
|    routes are assumed to use IPv4 unlabeled or IPv6 unlabeled.*"
|    *The entire EPE solution as described in the draft is contained to AS1. AS
|    2..4 are for illustration of the bigger picture only. 
|    - - - 
| 
|      ===Comments Begin===
|      Deploying Inter-AS L3VPN Option B Services with reference to the
| 
|    *Let me clarify that the EPE draft does not talk about VPN service. 
|    It only uses L3VPN VPN mechanism within AS1 to distribute EPE
|    *instrumentation data perhaps "VPN policy route" is a bit misleading term.
|    It really means that SAFI 128 is used for EPE steering labels
|    distribution. It is still only IPv4/IPv6 Internet service. 
|    Said this your suggestion of using EPE within VPN service and specifically
|    at EPE enhanced option B peering is valid. 
|    However if you would like to focus on using EPE for VPN service it seems
|    that new separate proposal may be required. There is few issues associated
|    with this unique to such use case. 
|    It can very well serve as parallel draft to Internet EPE use case.
|    Thx,
|    R.

| _______________________________________________
| Idr mailing list
| [email protected]
| https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to