Subject: RE: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt

From: "Nagarajan, Ananth [CC]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:58:49 -0500

Mourad,
What you say is perhaps good in an ideal world, but the world is far from ideal.  In an ideal world, one would use a washing machine that also washes dishes (stealing an example from an esteemed colleague), but that hasn't happened practically.
 
My 2 cents.
Ananth

-----Original Message-----
From: Mourad BERKANE [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 7:42 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt

Hi Jeremy, 

LDP is not used as a signaling protocol for IPv4, IPv6 or rfc2547bis :-) 

BGP is in charge of it (and do the job very well). 

May be this will clarify all theses exchanges about signalling in VPLS: adding a new signaling protocol (LDP) whitout any added value versus keeping the same signalling protocol (BGP) for differents services (IP,rfc2547bis,VPLS, futures needs)

You may confuse MPLS signaling (LDP or RSVP) and and VPLS signaling (LDP or BGP)? 

Mourad 

-----Message d'origine----- 
De : [email-masked] [ mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : mardi 29 avril 2003 14:19 
À : Mourad BERKANE 
Cc : [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; 
[email-masked]; [email-masked] 
Objet : Re: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt 

Mourad, 

> As you hinted here, MP-BGP is much more designed for a *public* 
> inter-AS session for VPLS. 

I still don't understand why MP-BGP is more appropriate than LDP for 
this application. I probably need more than a "hint" to fully understand 
it ;-) 

> Even if LDP/RSVP already present for the forwarding plane inside a 
> MPLS domain, why should i used LDP for VPLS signalling when BGP 
> already do the job (IPv4,v6,rfc2547bis,...)??? 

You can turn this around: Even if BGP is already present for 2547bis, 
v4, v6 etc, why should I use BGP for VPLS signaling when LDP already 
does the job (LDP for intra-AS tunnel LSPs, LDP for individual PWE3 
Pseudo-Wires, ...) ? 

[I guess the answer to both of the above questions is given in the large 
number of previous emails on this topic ;-)] 

Jeremy. 

> Mourad 
> 
> -----Message d'origine----- 
> De : Robert Raszuk [ mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Envoyé : mardi 29 avril 2003 11:26 
> À : [email-masked] 
> Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked] 
> Objet : Re: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt 
> 
> Andres, 
> 
> AFAIK there is no need to configure anything rather then a site 
> interface on the PEs. Autodiscovery will detect new addition and 
> propagate the news to all participants. Then in the lasserre-vkompella 
> 
> scheme directed LDP if not already set get's automatically established 
> 
> between parties. 
> 
> Of course the drawback here is that you need to keep LDP ports open 
> wide 
> within inter-AS LDP src ranges which may or may not be an acceptable 
> issue :-). 
> 
> R. 
> 
> > [email-masked] wrote: 
> > 
> > Hi Eric 
> > 
> > As I understand it a requirement would be to have a full mesh of LDP 
> 
> > sessions between the PEs in the participating AS domains. This means 
> 
> > configuration of each PE when for example a new site is added to an 
> > already existing VPN. If BGP is used this is not necessary as RRs 
> can be 
> > used, minimizing the configuration to the new PE and the RR. 
> > But perhaps there exist a solution similar to this for LDP as well? 
> It 
> > seems appealing to reuse the 2547bis structure we have also for VPLS 
> if 
> > it's possible. 
> > 
> > My point is that further investigation of the two different 
> solutions 
> > before rejecting one or the other would be good 
> > 
> > /Andreas 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: Eric Rosen [ mailto:[email-masked]] 
> > Sent: den 28 april 2003 16:29 
> > To: Mattsson, Andreas A. /Research /08-713 81 86, 070-618 67 67 
> > Cc: [email-masked] 
> > Subject: Re: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt 
> > 
> > Andreas> I would  also like to  know how inter-AS  with the LDP 
> > Andreas> approach in lasserre-vkompella is to be solved. 
> > 
> > Could you say what the issue is that you think needs to be solved?

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 06:34:52 -0700

Ananth,

> Mourad,
> What you say is perhaps good in an ideal world, but the world is far 
> from ideal.  

And what that has to do with Mourad's observation that BGP, and
not LDP, is used for exchanging IPv4 routes, IPv6 routes, rfc2547bis,
VR autodiscovery, L2VPNs, etc... ?

> In an ideal world, one would use a washing machine that 
> also washes dishes (stealing an example from an esteemed colleague), but 
> that hasn't happened practically.

Should this argument then be applied against using LDP for VPLS
signaling (even if it is used for MPLS signaling) ?

Yakov.

> =20
> Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; =
> Hi Jeremy,=20
> LDP is not used as a signaling protocol for IPv4, IPv6 or rfc2547bis :-) =
> 
> BGP is in charge of it (and do the job very well).=20
> 
> May be this will clarify all theses exchanges about signalling in VPLS: =
> adding a new signaling protocol (LDP) whitout any added value versus =
> keeping the same signalling protocol (BGP) for differents services =
> (IP,rfc2547bis,VPLS, futures needs)
> 
> You may confuse MPLS signaling (LDP or RSVP) and and VPLS signaling (LDP =
> or BGP)?=20
> 
> Mourad=20
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----=20
> De : [email-masked] [ mailto:[email-masked]]=20
> Envoy=E9 : mardi 29 avril 2003 14:19=20
> =C0 : Mourad BERKANE=20
> Cc : [email-masked]'; [email-masked];=20
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]=20
> Objet : Re: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt=20
> 
> 
> Mourad,=20
> 
> > As you hinted here, MP-BGP is much more designed for a *public*=20
> > inter-AS session for VPLS.=20
> 
> I still don't understand why MP-BGP is more appropriate than LDP for=20
> this application. I probably need more than a "hint" to fully understand =
> 
> it ;-)=20
> 
> > Even if LDP/RSVP already present for the forwarding plane inside a=20
> > MPLS domain, why should i used LDP for VPLS signalling when BGP=20
> > already do the job (IPv4,v6,rfc2547bis,...)???=20
> 
> You can turn this around: Even if BGP is already present for 2547bis,=20
> v4, v6 etc, why should I use BGP for VPLS signaling when LDP already=20
> does the job (LDP for intra-AS tunnel LSPs, LDP for individual PWE3=20
> Pseudo-Wires, ...) ?=20
> 
> [I guess the answer to both of the above questions is given in the large =
> 
> number of previous emails on this topic ;-)]=20
> 
> Jeremy.=20
> 
> > Mourad=20
> >=20
> > -----Message d'origine-----=20
> > De : Robert Raszuk [ mailto:[email-masked]]=20
> > Envoy=E9 : mardi 29 avril 2003 11:26=20
> > =C0 : [email-masked]=20
> > Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]=20
> > Objet : Re: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt=20
> >=20
> > Andres,=20
> >=20
> > AFAIK there is no need to configure anything rather then a site=20
> > interface on the PEs. Autodiscovery will detect new addition and=20
> > propagate the news to all participants. Then in the lasserre-vkompella =
> 
> >=20
> > scheme directed LDP if not already set get's automatically established =
> 
> >=20
> > between parties.=20
> >=20
> > Of course the drawback here is that you need to keep LDP ports open=20
> > wide=20
> > within inter-AS LDP src ranges which may or may not be an acceptable=20
> > issue :-).=20
> >=20
> > R.=20
> >=20
> > > [email-masked] wrote:=20
> > >=20
> > > Hi Eric=20
> > >=20
> > > As I understand it a requirement would be to have a full mesh of LDP =
> 
> >=20
> > > sessions between the PEs in the participating AS domains. This means =
> 
> >=20
> > > configuration of each PE when for example a new site is added to an=20
> > > already existing VPN. If BGP is used this is not necessary as RRs=20
> > can be=20
> > > used, minimizing the configuration to the new PE and the RR.=20
> > > But perhaps there exist a solution similar to this for LDP as well?=20
> > It=20
> > > seems appealing to reuse the 2547bis structure we have also for VPLS =
> 
> > if=20
> > > it's possible.=20
> > >=20
> > > My point is that further investigation of the two different=20
> > solutions=20
> > > before rejecting one or the other would be good=20
> > >=20
> > > /Andreas=20
> > >=20
> > > -----Original Message-----=20
> > > From: Eric Rosen [ mailto:[email-masked]]=20
> > > Sent: den 28 april 2003 16:29=20
> > > To: Mattsson, Andreas A. /Research /08-713 81 86, 070-618 67 67=20
> > > Cc: [email-masked]=20
> > > Subject: Re: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt=20
> > >=20
> > > Andreas> I would  also like to  know how inter-AS  with the LDP=20
> > > Andreas> approach in lasserre-vkompella is to be solved.=20
> > >=20
> > > Could you say what the issue is that you think needs to be solved?=20
> 
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C30E4F.13B79CCC
> Content-Type: text/html;
> 	charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> <TITLE>RE: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt</TITLE>
> 
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D638035712-29042003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
> 
> size=3D2>Mourad,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D638035712-29042003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
> size=3D2>What=20
> you say is perhaps good in an ideal world, but the world is far from=20
> ideal.&nbsp; In an ideal world, one would use a washing machine that =
> also washes=20
> dishes (stealing an example from an esteemed colleague), but that hasn't =
> 
> happened practically.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D638035712-29042003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
> 
> size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D638035712-29042003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
> size=3D2>My 2=20
> cents.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D638035712-29042003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
> 
> size=3D2>Ananth</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
> <DIV><SPAN class=3D638035712-29042003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
> 
> size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
> style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
> solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
>   <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
>   size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Mourad BERKANE=20
>   [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, April =
> 29, 2003=20
>   7:42 AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]'<BR><B>Cc:</B>=20
>   [email-masked]'; [email-masked]; =
> [email-masked];=20
>   [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Support for=20
>   draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>Hi Jeremy,</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>LDP is not used as a signaling protocol for IPv4, =
> IPv6 or=20
>   rfc2547bis :-)</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>BGP is in charge of it (and do the job very =
> well).</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>May be this will clarify all theses exchanges about =
> signalling=20
>   in VPLS: adding a new signaling protocol (LDP) whitout any added value =
> versus=20
>   keeping the same signalling protocol (BGP) for differents services=20
>   (IP,rfc2547bis,VPLS, futures needs)</FONT></P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>You may confuse MPLS signaling (LDP or RSVP) and and =
> VPLS=20
>   signaling (LDP or BGP)?</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>Mourad</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>-----Message d'origine-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>De :=20
>   [email-masked] [<A=20
>   =
> href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:jeremy.de_clercq@alcat=
> el.be</A>]</FONT>=20
>   <BR><FONT size=3D2>Envoy=E9 : mardi 29 avril 2003 14:19</FONT> =
> <BR><FONT size=3D2>=C0=20
>   : Mourad BERKANE</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Cc : [email-masked]';=20
>   [email-masked];</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>[email-masked];=20
>   [email-masked]</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Objet : Re: Support =
> for=20
>   draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt</FONT> </P><BR>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>Mourad,</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>&gt; As you hinted here, MP-BGP is much more =
> designed for a=20
>   *public*</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; inter-AS session for =
> VPLS.</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>I still don't understand why MP-BGP is more =
> appropriate than=20
>   LDP for</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>this application. I probably need =
> more than a=20
>   "hint" to fully understand</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>it ;-)</FONT> =
> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Even if LDP/RSVP already present for the =
> forwarding plane=20
>   inside a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; MPLS domain, why should i used =
> LDP for=20
>   VPLS signalling when BGP</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; already do the =
> job=20
>   (IPv4,v6,rfc2547bis,...)???</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>You can turn this around: Even if BGP is already =
> present for=20
>   2547bis,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>v4, v6 etc, why should I use BGP =
> for VPLS=20
>   signaling when LDP already</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>does the job (LDP =
> for=20
>   intra-AS tunnel LSPs, LDP for individual PWE3</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
>   size=3D2>Pseudo-Wires, ...) ?</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>[I guess the answer to both of the above questions =
> is given in=20
>   the large</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>number of previous emails on this =
> topic=20
>   ;-)]</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>Jeremy.</FONT> </P>
>   <P><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Mourad</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
> </FONT><BR><FONT=20
>   size=3D2>&gt; -----Message d'origine-----</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt; De :=20
>   Robert Raszuk [<A=20
>   href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>]</FONT> =
> <BR><FONT=20
>   size=3D2>&gt; Envoy=E9 : mardi 29 avril 2003 11:26</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt; =C0=20
>   : [email-masked]</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Cc : =
> 
>   [email-masked]; [email-masked]</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt; Objet=20
>   : Re: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
>   size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Andres,</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; AFAIK there is no need to configure =
> anything=20
>   rather then a site</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; interface on the =
> PEs.=20
>   Autodiscovery will detect new addition and</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   propagate the news to all participants. Then in the =
> lasserre-vkompella</FONT>=20
>   <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; scheme directed =
> LDP if not=20
>   already set get's automatically established</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; between parties.</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; Of course the drawback here is that you =
> need to=20
>   keep LDP ports open</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; wide</FONT> =
> <BR><FONT=20
>   size=3D2>&gt; within inter-AS LDP src ranges which may or may not be =
> an=20
>   acceptable</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; issue :-).</FONT> <BR><FONT=20
>   size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; R.</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; [email-masked]=20
>   wrote:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Hi=20
>   Eric</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt; &gt; As I=20
>   understand it a requirement would be to have a full mesh of LDP</FONT> =
> 
>   <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; sessions =
> between the=20
>   PEs in the participating AS domains. This means</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; configuration of each PE when for =
> example a=20
>   new site is added to an</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; already =
> existing=20
>   VPN. If BGP is used this is not necessary as RRs</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   can be</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; used, minimizing the =
> configuration to=20
>   the new PE and the RR.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; But perhaps =
> there=20
>   exist a solution similar to this for LDP as well?</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   It</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; seems appealing to reuse the =
> 2547bis=20
>   structure we have also for VPLS</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
> if</FONT>=20
>   <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; it's possible.</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; My point is that further =
> investigation=20
>   of the two different</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; solutions</FONT> =
> <BR><FONT=20
>   size=3D2>&gt; &gt; before rejecting one or the other would be =
> good</FONT>=20
>   <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; =
> /Andreas</FONT>=20
>   <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; =
> -----Original=20
>   Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; From: Eric Rosen [<A=20
>   href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>]</FONT> =
> <BR><FONT=20
>   size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Sent: den 28 april 2003 16:29</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   &gt; To: Mattsson, Andreas A. /Research /08-713 81 86, 070-618 67 =
> 67</FONT>=20
>   <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Cc: [email-masked]</FONT> =
> <BR><FONT=20
>   size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Subject: Re: Support for=20
>   draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; =
> &gt;</FONT>=20
>   <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Andreas&gt; I would&nbsp; also like =
> to&nbsp; know=20
>   how inter-AS&nbsp; with the LDP</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; =
> Andreas&gt;=20
>   approach in lasserre-vkompella is to be solved.</FONT> <BR><FONT =
> size=3D2>&gt;=20
>   &gt;</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>&gt; &gt; Could you say what the issue =
> is that=20
>   you think needs to be solved?</FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
> 
> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C30E4F.13B79CCC--
> 
>