From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:34 PM
To: Uma Chunduri <[email protected]>
Cc: RTGWG <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Routing in DC RTGWG interim - updated
I am not sure this is the central issue ..but for SPF based approaches to have
the topology view this could be one part of it (and hence in bgp-spf, usage of
BGP-LS to advertise the TCP peering as a Link NLRI with new TLVs distinguishing
itself from IGP adj representation).
Well on BGP SPF proposal I see number of advantage .. but very honestly I do
not buy into how it is being "sold" here.
If folks talking about it would say ... our proposal is to run BGP SPF on
controller only to optimize and augment things while you still run normal eBGP
in CLOS I would be perhaps very interested in seriously supporting this work.
But if I hear that this is to replace eBGP and push routes left and right
"centrally computed" this goes way over the max level of gain vs drawback/risk
level one is to accept.
[Uma]: This is one of the reasons I asked if node protection is critical during
one of the problem presentations.
You don’t need link protection in CLOS nodes (your ECMP is
indeed a link protection alternative) but if one is seeking node protection in
any CLOS node RFC 7938 won’t help but bgp-spf potentially would and as you
pointed gain vs drawback/risk..
Best,
R.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
