Hi John, Aldrin's email was not very clear on that especially as he highlighted mpls support in hardware.
However you as Juniper stating " L3VPN and E-VPN over an IP infrastructure" it's a great news (after so many years ...) ! Bravo !!! Sincerely yours, R. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM, John E Drake <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > We are talking about L3VPN and E-VPN over an IP infrastructure so there is no > LDP or RSVP-TE. Rather, the only label is the service label which is > distributed via BGP or XMPP. > > Irrespectively Yours, > > John > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Robert Raszuk >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 11:06 AM >> To: Aldrin Isaac >> Cc: Melinda Shore; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-xu-mpls-in-udp-03 >> >> Aldirn, >> >> > Now with support for MPLS in merchant silicon, I don't see any good >> > reason why MPLS-based DCVPN solutions (IPVPN, E-VPN) should be held >> > back >> >> For service demux I see no issue as well >> >> For transport I see two major issues: >> >> - MPLS requires new signalling protocol ... DC fabric and hosts which >> do act as PEs should be as simple as possible, but not simpler hence >> introduction of LDP or worse RSVP-TE to signal the labels seems not >> helpful. >> >> - MPLS FECs can not be summarized. With IP we just need information how >> to reach subnet X ... with MPLS (even if one would provide the relaxed >> match) FECs are still /32s That's a lot of them in large data centers. >> >> Cheers, >> R. >> _______________________________________________ >> nvo3 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
