Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-10.txt

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:16:17 +0200

Luca, do we have a conclusion on including the RD in the BGP advertisement. The biggest advantage of this is that it allows to provide path resilience for a MS-PW without requiring BGP-Add Path or deploying A/S PW with 2 prefixes per PE. By including the RD in the BGP NLRI ee will not imply dependencies on the MS-PW deployment and allow people to adopt the right strategy based on their needs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Luca Martini [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: woensdag 16 juni 2010 1:15
To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-10.txt

Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote:
>
> Luca,
>
>  
>
> What is the reason we did not include the RD in the NLRI Field ? With 
> other MP-BGP solutions this allows for optimal resilience. On top it 
> also provides a common operations between different MP-BGP solutions.
>
>  
>
we did not add it because this is not a vpn, hence we did not need a 
address discriminator in BGP. For the multiple path requirement we were 
planning to use bgp add path.
>
> Interested to understand the reason and looking to see if we can still 
> add it if people agree.
>
>  
>
If you agree , I think this it would be a good idea to add the RD back 
because it seems that the  add-path
is not a popular BGP feature at this time, and I do not want to have our 
dynamic MS-PW solution depend on a feature that is quite complicated to 
develop and deploy.

Thanks.
Luca

> Cheers,
> Wim