From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Jan 3 14:21:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2788B1ADFD7 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:21:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.147 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60m4CxNo73bz for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B78B1ADFD6 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:21:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s03ML4AY030134 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 22:21:04 GMT Received: from 950129200 (14.21.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.21.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s03ML1UL030084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 22:21:02 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 22:21:02 -0000 Message-ID: <029a01cf08d2$18194f60$484bee20$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac8I0V1DHuMGa24ERkyBJg7vwFaM3Q== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: No Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs in the New Year X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 22:21:14 -0000 Sending this again in the hope of catching some people at their desks at the start of January. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 25 December 2013 21:42 > To: scale@ietf.org > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs at Christmas > > Hello Scale Mailing List, > > I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of activity on this list. If there is genuine > support for the idea of a BoF to discuss scaling VPNs (issues, requirements, > moving towards solutions) I would have expected to see more traffic. Certainly, > if there is no more evidence of enthusiasm to discuss this then I don't think we > will go ahead with a face-to-face meeting (i.e. a BoF) at the London IETF. > > I had expected to hear a chorus of complaints from operators about how they > struggle with their deployments today, and how they want to grow them soon. I > thought I was going to hear from a number of operators about the VPN > requirements of data centers. And I had expected a number of vendors to be > wanting to talk about how they address these problems. My expectation had > been > that we would talk about different scaling challenges across the VPN space and > learn what techniques could be common. > > But it is OK! > If no-one has scaling concerns or if no-one wants to talk about them right now, > we can move on. > > Cheers, > Adrian From adrian@olddog.co.uk Tue Jan 7 02:46:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3321AD9AE for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 02:46:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mDP_xxXOJDDI for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 02:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6081ACC81 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 02:46:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07Ak3pd005383 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:46:03 GMT Received: from 950129200 (16.17.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.17.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07Ak0lT005342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:46:02 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:46:03 -0000 Message-ID: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac8LlXo7rmQfRaqqT/KfoIgUYVLR3Q== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:46:15 -0000 My previous two emails may have been lost in the vacations. It is now a working week for most people, so let's have one more attempt to see whether there is interest in this topic. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 03 January 2014 22:21 > To: scale@ietf.org > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs in the New Year > > Sending this again in the hope of catching some people at their desks at the > start of January. > > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > > Sent: 25 December 2013 21:42 > > To: scale@ietf.org > > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs at Christmas > > > > Hello Scale Mailing List, > > > > I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of activity on this list. If there is genuine > > support for the idea of a BoF to discuss scaling VPNs (issues, requirements, > > moving towards solutions) I would have expected to see more traffic. > Certainly, > > if there is no more evidence of enthusiasm to discuss this then I don't think > we > > will go ahead with a face-to-face meeting (i.e. a BoF) at the London IETF. > > > > I had expected to hear a chorus of complaints from operators about how they > > struggle with their deployments today, and how they want to grow them soon. > I > > thought I was going to hear from a number of operators about the VPN > > requirements of data centers. And I had expected a number of vendors to be > > wanting to talk about how they address these problems. My expectation had > > been > > that we would talk about different scaling challenges across the VPN space and > > learn what techniques could be common. > > > > But it is OK! > > If no-one has scaling concerns or if no-one wants to talk about them right > now, > > we can move on. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > _______________________________________________ > scale mailing list > scale@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale From prvs=0084db7cfc=hshah@ciena.com Tue Jan 7 07:14:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF3D1ADF2E for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:14:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QkeIu9pzHefg for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.144.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7971ADBD7 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s07FAhkP008025; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:14:05 -0500 Received: from mdwexght02.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-29.ciena.com [63.118.36.29]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1h8kqq02jv-11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:14:04 -0500 Received: from MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.106) by MDWEXGHT02.ciena.com (10.4.140.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:14:03 -0500 Received: from ONWVEXCHHT01.ciena.com (10.128.6.16) by MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:14:03 -0500 Received: from ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com ([::1]) by ONWVEXCHHT01.ciena.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:14:02 -0500 From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "scale@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:14:01 -0500 Thread-Topic: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs Thread-Index: Ac8LlXo7rmQfRaqqT/KfoIgUYVLR3QAIx42Q Message-ID: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC7592@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> References: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-20416.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--34.614200-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.87, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-01-07_05:2014-01-07,2014-01-07,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1305240000 definitions=main-1401070082 Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:14:16 -0000 Hi Adrian - Silence is deafening, possibly holidays and diversion to next glittering (S= DN) object.. :-) I am interested in scaling and performance requirements of VPNs in data cen= ters as well as carrier networks. >From vendors (mine) perspective, we need to understand what the realistic e= xpectations are. Like you, I wish as well, that some of the operators participate in this di= scussion so that f2f meeting in London could be more productive. Thanks, himanshu -----Original Message----- From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:46 AM To: scale@ietf.org Subject: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs My previous two emails may have been lost in the vacations. It is now a working week for most people, so let's have one more attempt to= see whether there is interest in this topic. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 03 January 2014 22:21 > To: scale@ietf.org > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs in the New Year >=20 > Sending this again in the hope of catching some people at their desks=20 > at the start of January. >=20 > Adrian >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian=20 > > Farrel > > Sent: 25 December 2013 21:42 > > To: scale@ietf.org > > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs at Christmas > > > > Hello Scale Mailing List, > > > > I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of activity on this list. If there is=20 > > genuine support for the idea of a BoF to discuss scaling VPNs=20 > > (issues, requirements, moving towards solutions) I would have expected = to see more traffic. > Certainly, > > if there is no more evidence of enthusiasm to discuss this then I=20 > > don't think > we > > will go ahead with a face-to-face meeting (i.e. a BoF) at the London IE= TF. > > > > I had expected to hear a chorus of complaints from operators about=20 > > how they struggle with their deployments today, and how they want to gr= ow them soon. > I > > thought I was going to hear from a number of operators about the VPN=20 > > requirements of data centers. And I had expected a number of vendors=20 > > to be wanting to talk about how they address these problems. My=20 > > expectation had been that we would talk about different scaling=20 > > challenges across the VPN space and > > learn what techniques could be common. > > > > But it is OK! > > If no-one has scaling concerns or if no-one wants to talk about them=20 > > right > now, > > we can move on. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > scale mailing list > scale@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale _______________________________________________ scale mailing list scale@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale From prvs=0084db7cfc=hshah@ciena.com Tue Jan 7 07:17:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41CE1ADE72 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:17:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ey7m3_baRcU for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:17:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.144.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C4C1ADBD7 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:17:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s07FGpKE018719; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:17:33 -0500 Received: from mdwexght02.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-29.ciena.com [63.118.36.29]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1h8kqq02xe-10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:17:33 -0500 Received: from ONWVEXCHHT02.ciena.com (10.128.6.17) by MDWEXGHT02.ciena.com (10.4.140.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.298.1; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:17:30 -0500 Received: from ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com ([::1]) by ONWVEXCHHT02.ciena.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:17:29 -0500 From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "scale@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:17:28 -0500 Thread-Topic: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs Thread-Index: Ac8LlXo7rmQfRaqqT/KfoIgUYVLR3QAIx42QAACsCxA= Message-ID: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC75AB@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> References: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC7592@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> In-Reply-To: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC7592@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-20416.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--39.194200-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.87, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-01-07_06:2014-01-07,2014-01-07,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1305240000 definitions=main-1401070084 Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:17:44 -0000 Just thinking - it might be possible that not enough people have signed in = to this mailing list. Would it be worth sending your email to other mailing lists such as - mpls,= PWE3, L2VPN and L3VPN, before considering to turn the lights off? Thanks, Himanshu -----Original Message----- From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:14 AM To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; scale@ietf.org Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs Hi Adrian - Silence is deafening, possibly holidays and diversion to next glittering (S= DN) object.. :-) I am interested in scaling and performance requirements of VPNs in data cen= ters as well as carrier networks. >From vendors (mine) perspective, we need to understand what the realistic e= xpectations are. Like you, I wish as well, that some of the operators participate in this di= scussion so that f2f meeting in London could be more productive. Thanks, himanshu -----Original Message----- From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:46 AM To: scale@ietf.org Subject: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs My previous two emails may have been lost in the vacations. It is now a working week for most people, so let's have one more attempt to= see whether there is interest in this topic. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 03 January 2014 22:21 > To: scale@ietf.org > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs in the New Year >=20 > Sending this again in the hope of catching some people at their desks=20 > at the start of January. >=20 > Adrian >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian=20 > > Farrel > > Sent: 25 December 2013 21:42 > > To: scale@ietf.org > > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs at Christmas > > > > Hello Scale Mailing List, > > > > I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of activity on this list. If there is=20 > > genuine support for the idea of a BoF to discuss scaling VPNs=20 > > (issues, requirements, moving towards solutions) I would have expected = to see more traffic. > Certainly, > > if there is no more evidence of enthusiasm to discuss this then I=20 > > don't think > we > > will go ahead with a face-to-face meeting (i.e. a BoF) at the London IE= TF. > > > > I had expected to hear a chorus of complaints from operators about=20 > > how they struggle with their deployments today, and how they want to gr= ow them soon. > I > > thought I was going to hear from a number of operators about the VPN=20 > > requirements of data centers. And I had expected a number of vendors=20 > > to be wanting to talk about how they address these problems. My=20 > > expectation had been that we would talk about different scaling=20 > > challenges across the VPN space and > > learn what techniques could be common. > > > > But it is OK! > > If no-one has scaling concerns or if no-one wants to talk about them=20 > > right > now, > > we can move on. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > scale mailing list > scale@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale _______________________________________________ scale mailing list scale@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale _______________________________________________ scale mailing list scale@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale From ramk@Brocade.com Tue Jan 7 07:28:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD261ADF6D for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:28:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dlpnf60qLI2G for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com [67.231.144.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7691ADF32 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000542 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s07FIB71023713; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:28:29 -0800 Received: from hq1wp-exchub01.corp.brocade.com ([144.49.131.13]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1h72ehuqrn-5 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:28:29 -0800 Received: from HQ1WP-EXHUB01.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.14) by HQ1WP-EXCHUB01.corp.brocade.com (10.70.36.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:28:28 -0800 Received: from HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::ed42:173e:fe7d:d0a6]) by HQ1WP-EXHUB01.corp.brocade.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:28:13 -0800 From: ramki Krishnan To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "scale@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:28:14 -0800 Thread-Topic: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs Thread-Index: Ac8LlXo7rmQfRaqqT/KfoIgUYVLR3QAJyApA Message-ID: References: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.11.87, 1.0.14, 0.0.0000 definitions=2014-01-07_05:2014-01-07,2014-01-07,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1305240000 definitions=main-1401070084 Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:28:40 -0000 Hi Adrian, I and other folks from Brocade are very interested in the VPN requirements = for data centers. We are connecting to operators to see their interest in t= his topic. Thanks, Ramki -----Original Message----- From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 2:46 AM To: scale@ietf.org Subject: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs My previous two emails may have been lost in the vacations. It is now a working week for most people, so let's have one more attempt to= see whether there is interest in this topic. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 03 January 2014 22:21 > To: scale@ietf.org > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs in the New Year >=20 > Sending this again in the hope of catching some people at their desks=20 > at the start of January. >=20 > Adrian >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian=20 > > Farrel > > Sent: 25 December 2013 21:42 > > To: scale@ietf.org > > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs at Christmas > > > > Hello Scale Mailing List, > > > > I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of activity on this list. If there is=20 > > genuine support for the idea of a BoF to discuss scaling VPNs=20 > > (issues, requirements, moving towards solutions) I would have expected = to see more traffic. > Certainly, > > if there is no more evidence of enthusiasm to discuss this then I=20 > > don't think > we > > will go ahead with a face-to-face meeting (i.e. a BoF) at the London IE= TF. > > > > I had expected to hear a chorus of complaints from operators about=20 > > how they struggle with their deployments today, and how they want to gr= ow them soon. > I > > thought I was going to hear from a number of operators about the VPN=20 > > requirements of data centers. And I had expected a number of vendors=20 > > to be wanting to talk about how they address these problems. My=20 > > expectation had been that we would talk about different scaling=20 > > challenges across the VPN space and > > learn what techniques could be common. > > > > But it is OK! > > If no-one has scaling concerns or if no-one wants to talk about them=20 > > right > now, > > we can move on. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > scale mailing list > scale@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale _______________________________________________ scale mailing list scale@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale From adrian@olddog.co.uk Tue Jan 7 08:34:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1D41ADF72 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:34:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VsdFymcl8Lde for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:34:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820301ADFDC for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 08:34:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07GYX7O017215; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:34:33 GMT Received: from 950129200 (14.21.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.21.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s07GYV5N017177 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:34:32 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Shah, Himanshu'" References: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC7592@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC75AB@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> In-Reply-To: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC75AB@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 16:34:34 -0000 Message-ID: <016901cf0bc6$5a5da370$0f18ea50$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQEn7znljCDS1dWZKJGawOcA3dBUcgJrDpo6Ajsm35SbonsxMA== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: No Cc: scale@ietf.org Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 16:34:55 -0000 Hi Himanshu, You may be right. The list shows "only" 75 subscribers, but I figure that the list was advertised well enough when created so that those who are concerned did sign up (you found it :-). I think as you and Ramki indicated, a number of us would be interested in hearing what operators would like to achieve as raw numbers in DC VPNs, but to date not only do we not have those numbers, we don't have an idea whether they would create any issues. Perhaps these are conversations that operators prefer to have with their vendors and the scaling issues are more related to implementations than to protocols. My conclusion (at the moment) is that the I-Ds that currently hint at scaling issues for VPNs are providing solutions for speculative problems, or (worse) trying to find justifications for protocol extensions without real cause. We'll keep stirring, but I am not holding my breath! Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com] > Sent: 07 January 2014 15:17 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; scale@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs > > Just thinking - it might be possible that not enough people have signed in to this > mailing list. > Would it be worth sending your email to other mailing lists such as - mpls, PWE3, > L2VPN and L3VPN, > before considering to turn the lights off? > > Thanks, > Himanshu > > -----Original Message----- > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:14 AM > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; scale@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs > > Hi Adrian - > > Silence is deafening, possibly holidays and diversion to next glittering (SDN) > object.. :-) > > I am interested in scaling and performance requirements of VPNs in data centers > as well as carrier networks. > From vendors (mine) perspective, we need to understand what the realistic > expectations are. > > Like you, I wish as well, that some of the operators participate in this discussion > so that f2f meeting in London could be more productive. > > Thanks, > himanshu > > > -----Original Message----- > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:46 AM > To: scale@ietf.org > Subject: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs > > My previous two emails may have been lost in the vacations. > > It is now a working week for most people, so let's have one more attempt to see > whether there is interest in this topic. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > > Sent: 03 January 2014 22:21 > > To: scale@ietf.org > > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs in the New Year > > > > Sending this again in the hope of catching some people at their desks > > at the start of January. > > > > Adrian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian > > > Farrel > > > Sent: 25 December 2013 21:42 > > > To: scale@ietf.org > > > Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs at Christmas > > > > > > Hello Scale Mailing List, > > > > > > I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of activity on this list. If there is > > > genuine support for the idea of a BoF to discuss scaling VPNs > > > (issues, requirements, moving towards solutions) I would have expected to > see more traffic. > > Certainly, > > > if there is no more evidence of enthusiasm to discuss this then I > > > don't > think > > we > > > will go ahead with a face-to-face meeting (i.e. a BoF) at the London IETF. > > > > > > I had expected to hear a chorus of complaints from operators about > > > how they struggle with their deployments today, and how they want to grow > them soon. > > I > > > thought I was going to hear from a number of operators about the VPN > > > requirements of data centers. And I had expected a number of vendors > > > to be wanting to talk about how they address these problems. My > > > expectation had been that we would talk about different scaling > > > challenges across the VPN space > and > > > learn what techniques could be common. > > > > > > But it is OK! > > > If no-one has scaling concerns or if no-one wants to talk about them > > > right > > now, > > > we can move on. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Adrian > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > scale mailing list > > scale@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale > > _______________________________________________ > scale mailing list > scale@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale > _______________________________________________ > scale mailing list > scale@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale From rjs@rob.sh Tue Jan 7 09:01:24 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E731F1AE055 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:01:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pWMoVTh5pN5I for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:01:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC171AE02E for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:01:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [31.55.10.71] (helo=[10.210.8.207]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W0a1b-0004Pt-LH; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:01:07 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Rob Shakir In-Reply-To: <016901cf0bc6$5a5da370$0f18ea50$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:01:05 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC7592@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC75AB@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> <016901cf0bc6$5a5da370$0f18ea50$@olddog.co.uk> To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk Farrel" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: scale@ietf.org, "Shah, Himanshu" Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:01:25 -0000 Adrian, As someone who has worked for a few operators, I=92ll raise my head = above the parapet. Wes George and I worked on a draft that characterises some of the = problems that we have seen in various operational L3VPN deployments. It = really speaks to the specific case of control-plane scaling issues on = L3VPN PEs. I do not think that this draft intends to speculate on any = new work that the IETF should necessarily commence - although there may = be various solutions that could be proposed to helping handle some of = the scaling behaviours that we discussed. As such - I think any BoF that is going to be held on this topic really = need to consider what causes scaling issues. For me, there are three = different areas:=20 1. An individual operator=92s policy on how it implements its networks, = products, and the features and capabilities that it supports. 2. Each equipment vendor=92s implementation of these features, and = their underlying software architecture. 3. The features and procedures of the underlying protocols running on = each device. Essentially, even though all of these are going to impact the overall = scaling of PEs in L3VPN environments, but it is my feeling that both 1. = and 2. are somewhat more of a problem than 3. For instance, both 1 and 2 = require understanding of how different devices, or features that could = be deployed together interact with one another, and the particulars of = how that may be handled in the implementation in question - which are = clearly going to be discussions which fall outside of the IETF=92s = scope. IMHO, often the understanding that operators are trying to get to = here is not even trying to drive the highest scale per device, but also = about determining the level to which a particular deployment will scale = given the various different variables (size of RIBs, frequency of RIB = updates, type of services provisioned, OAM features deployed=85). My intention in working on the draft-gs-vpn-scaling doc was to try to = highlight what some of the scaling pitfalls can be, and provide some = motivation (based on experiences) for such multi-dimensional scaling to = be something that is actually examined by equipment implementors = (typically, the head-line numbers on the spec. sheet are very nice in = isolation, but not very good together). On this note, I am looking to = update the doc based on some discussions Wes and I had in Berlin =97 but = I have unfortunately not managed to carve out the cycles to do so just = yet. On the lack of response =97 I would suggest that collecting operator = opinions only through the IETF is likely to be something that yields = datasets from relatively few parties inherently, perhaps it is worth = posing the question to one or more of the operator group lists. Kind regards, r. On 7 Jan 2014, at 16:34, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Himanshu, >=20 > You may be right. The list shows "only" 75 subscribers, but I figure = that the > list was advertised well enough when created so that those who are = concerned did > sign up (you found it :-). >=20 > I think as you and Ramki indicated, a number of us would be interested = in > hearing what operators would like to achieve as raw numbers in DC = VPNs, but to > date not only do we not have those numbers, we don't have an idea = whether they > would create any issues. Perhaps these are conversations that = operators prefer > to have with their vendors and the scaling issues are more related to > implementations than to protocols. >=20 > My conclusion (at the moment) is that the I-Ds that currently hint at = scaling > issues for VPNs are providing solutions for speculative problems, or = (worse) > trying to find justifications for protocol extensions without real = cause. >=20 > We'll keep stirring, but I am not holding my breath! >=20 > Adrian >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com] >> Sent: 07 January 2014 15:17 >> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; scale@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs >>=20 >> Just thinking - it might be possible that not enough people have = signed in to > this >> mailing list. >> Would it be worth sending your email to other mailing lists such as - = mpls, > PWE3, >> L2VPN and L3VPN, >> before considering to turn the lights off? >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Himanshu >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, = Himanshu >> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:14 AM >> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; scale@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs >>=20 >> Hi Adrian - >>=20 >> Silence is deafening, possibly holidays and diversion to next = glittering (SDN) >> object.. :-) >>=20 >> I am interested in scaling and performance requirements of VPNs in = data > centers >> as well as carrier networks. >> =46rom vendors (mine) perspective, we need to understand what the = realistic >> expectations are. >>=20 >> Like you, I wish as well, that some of the operators participate in = this > discussion >> so that f2f meeting in London could be more productive. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> himanshu >>=20 >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian = Farrel >> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:46 AM >> To: scale@ietf.org >> Subject: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs >>=20 >> My previous two emails may have been lost in the vacations. >>=20 >> It is now a working week for most people, so let's have one more = attempt to > see >> whether there is interest in this topic. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Adrian >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian = Farrel >>> Sent: 03 January 2014 22:21 >>> To: scale@ietf.org >>> Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs in the New Year >>>=20 >>> Sending this again in the hope of catching some people at their = desks >>> at the start of January. >>>=20 >>> Adrian >>>=20 >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: scale [mailto:scale-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian >>>> Farrel >>>> Sent: 25 December 2013 21:42 >>>> To: scale@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [scale] Scaling VPNs at Christmas >>>>=20 >>>> Hello Scale Mailing List, >>>>=20 >>>> I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of activity on this list. If there is >>>> genuine support for the idea of a BoF to discuss scaling VPNs >>>> (issues, requirements, moving towards solutions) I would have = expected to >> see more traffic. >>> Certainly, >>>> if there is no more evidence of enthusiasm to discuss this then I >>>> don't >> think >>> we >>>> will go ahead with a face-to-face meeting (i.e. a BoF) at the = London IETF. >>>>=20 >>>> I had expected to hear a chorus of complaints from operators about >>>> how they struggle with their deployments today, and how they want = to grow >> them soon. >>> I >>>> thought I was going to hear from a number of operators about the = VPN >>>> requirements of data centers. And I had expected a number of = vendors >>>> to be wanting to talk about how they address these problems. My >>>> expectation had been that we would talk about different scaling >>>> challenges across the VPN space >> and >>>> learn what techniques could be common. >>>>=20 >>>> But it is OK! >>>> If no-one has scaling concerns or if no-one wants to talk about = them >>>> right >>> now, >>>> we can move on. >>>>=20 >>>> Cheers, >>>> Adrian >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> scale mailing list >>> scale@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> scale mailing list >> scale@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale >> _______________________________________________ >> scale mailing list >> scale@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale >=20 > _______________________________________________ > scale mailing list > scale@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scale From rjs@rob.sh Tue Jan 7 09:09:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A2E1AE037 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:09:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uav9Xy7qDHNF for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:08:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2a03:9800:10:4c::cafe:b00c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7621ADFFF for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 09:08:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [31.55.10.71] (helo=[10.210.8.207]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W0a92-0004QQ-3O; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:08:48 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Rob Shakir In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:08:45 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <00d101cf0b95$aa505de0$fef119a0$@olddog.co.uk> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC7592@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B6BFC75AB@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com> <016901cf0bc6$5a5da370$0f18ea50$@olddog.co.uk> To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk Farrel" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Cc: scale@ietf.org Subject: Re: [scale] Third (and final?) call to discuss scaling VPNs X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 17:09:01 -0000 On 7 Jan 2014, at 17:01, Rob Shakir wrote: > My intention in working on the draft-gs-vpn-scaling doc was to try to = highlight what some of the scaling pitfalls can be, and provide some = motivation (based on experiences) for such multi-dimensional scaling to = be something that is actually examined by equipment implementors = (typically, the head-line numbers on the spec. sheet are very nice in = isolation, but not very good together). On this note, I am looking to = update the doc based on some discussions Wes and I had in Berlin =97 but = I have unfortunately not managed to carve out the cycles to do so just = yet. Although my cycles are limited, they=92re not *that* limited =97 = actually I=92m updating post-Vancouver! r.= From lberger@labn.net Sun Jan 12 10:13:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: scale@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6071ADFB5 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:13:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W6Gi6UT4f3g4 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:13:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from alt-proxy16.mail.unifiedlayer.com (alt-proxy16.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.197.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0683C1ADF7D for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:13:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 25833 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jan 2014 18:13:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2014 18:13:30 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=9ga7b4KHym2DRnwN7WD8GTUSxnhLtlnD0DXwLeQ28xM=; b=hOxk5kko+FTwY2SldM21Z6tjIOpjUr2W+sgt8CYKqwssif7BuKr5e0dHYCd26WQm2PMoWy2USreb7Rr0RvkkFsYq9j5HrbZcBTZgTasDQxEGYuIov0WMaLPRJ8OPhhyi; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:43543 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1W2PXL-0006MF-91; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:13:27 -0700 Message-ID: <52D2DB44.4020706@labn.net> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:13:24 -0500 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: scale@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Cc: Adrian Farrel , Loa Anderson Subject: [scale] No BoF in London, but please continue the discussion X-BeenThere: scale@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: MPLS VPN Scaling List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:13:46 -0000 All, Adrian, Loa and I have agreed the we haven't had the level of discussion/interest to justify a BoF in London. That said, this list will remain open (for now) and we encourage those of you who are interested in this topic to meet in London in bars and other convivial venues to discuss the topic. (and identify the specific topics and issues that may justify a future BoF.) For those interested in the topic, I suggest taking a look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gs-vpn-scaling and the slides sent by Loa http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scale/current/msg00003.html as a starting point. Lou (+ Loa & Adrian)