70 likes | 203 Vues
L2VPN Signaling Draft And VPLS Autodiscovery issue. L2 Signaling RD issue. Current document proposes to use RD:Ip_addr construct in NLRI RD is then put into AGI field of PW LDP signaling FEC 129 requires AGI to match in both directions of a PW to bring up the PW.
E N D
L2 Signaling RD issue • Current document proposes to use RD:Ip_addr construct in NLRI • RD is then put into AGI field of PW LDP signaling • FEC 129 requires AGI to match in both directions of a PW to bring up the PW. • We want to remain backward compatible with draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-06
Protocol issue: • RD is just a route distinguisher, Not an Identifier. • L2 vpn VFI requires an identifier.
Possible solutions • Keep RD and make it match. • Use RT instead in AGI. • Use BGP Opaque Extended Community - per [RFC4360] to transport the VPLS-ID.
VPLS-ID • Use BGP community to signal VPLS-ID == AGI • Allows the current RD/RT definition to be exactly as L3VPN. • Can be a true VSI identifier to signal in AGI. • AGI type 1 definition does not match. • However I will make change the allocation to be “AGI encoded as Route Distinguisher”.
Opaque Extended Community • FCFS allocation • 6 bytes long • Will request 0x0300,0x0301,0x0302 to match respective RD encoding. • Change to RFC4446 ( yet to be published) OLD: AGI Type Length Description Reference =================================================================== 0x01 8 Route distinguisher (RD) [SIG] NEW: AGI Type Length Description Reference =================================================================== 0x01 8 AGI encoded as Route Distinguisher [SIG]
The END ! • Questions ?