Subject: RE: VPN solution - White flag ?

From: "Fu, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:43:43 -0700

I didn't realize that these are the latest innovative IETF language trend.

James Fu  

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:43 AM
To: Paul Doolan
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: VPN solution - White flag ? 

I  don't really  want  to  keep it  up  either, but  as  long as  misleading
statements are being made I feel I have to reply. 

Paul> BGP ...   distributes reachability information  in the IDR  system. We
Paul> may agree or disagree on how well it scales in that application.  That
Paul> has little bearing on whether  that property applies in this different
Paul> application.

Whether  something  scales in  an  extremely  large  environment has  little
bearing on whether it scales in  a smaller environment?  I can't imagine why
anyone would make such a claim. 

Paul> The scalability  of BGP is  only one of  the issues with  the protocol
Paul> which call its use in this application into question. 

Now that's an example of FUD!!

---

From: "Raj Jakkampudi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 01:10:05 GMT

Hi Vijay,

I'm somewhat leary about entering into this debate but ... At the one 
promising ISP that both of us worked at, not all routers carried the full 
Internet routing table (or all edges aren't the same). In particular, the 
routers servicing the dial access and the DSL networks did not carry the 
full routing table. I would also say that there were other specialized 
routers in the network e.g. the peering routers, the dedicated customer 
routers, and the multicast routers. It does not seem inconceivable to me 
that they would not have used specialized routers to provide VPN solutions 
especially if the solutions were needed to scale or had special business 
requiremnets (e.g. management or troubleshooting). In fact with that type of 
solution the scaling of the VPN network could be independant of the scaling 
of the rest of the network.

thanks,
/Raj

>From: Vijay Gill <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:04:04 -0400
>
>
>[ folks, it doesn't hurt to trim headers ]
>
>On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Eric Rosen wrote:
>
> > Randy> if an enterprise wanting to deploy it is not an isp, then they'll
> > Randy> need their own layer 1 or2 connectivity between all endpoints.
> >
> > Just to be  clear, you are saying  that, to the best of  your knowledge, 
>all
> > networks fall into one of the following two categories:
> >
> > 1. needs to carry all Internet routes to every edge
>
>Having worked at one or two promising local ISPs, I assure you that the
>plan of deploying two routers where one will do (and where one is just to
>aggregate VPN customers) is something that will not fly very well.
>
>This of course leads to a realistic scenario where you have the minimum
>number of routers necessary to satisfy the business need at the edge and
>since a couple of customers insist on having full routes, well....
>
>I suspect this is where Randy is coming from. Given that routers _barely_
>work as it is, we'd much rather wish this additional problem onto someone
>else than have it sit in the ISP core, where routers crashing lead to SLA
>violations and asosciated pain.
>
> > 2. needs complete mesh of layer 2 connections between all endpoints.
> >
> > I had no  idea that all networks  fell into one of these  two 
>categories!  I
> > don't know how I missed that ;-)
>
>Just most _realistic_ ISP networks fall into case 1.
>
>/vijay
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 08:33:24 -0000

<snipped>
> All I can say that the usefulness of various alternatives is unlikely
> to be determined by the debates on this list, but is likely to be
> determined by the competition on the marketplace. With this in mind,
> what exactly are you trying to accomplish by continuing this debate ?
> 
> Yakov.
> 
	NH=> I agree.  My/BT take here is that we need L1, L2, MPLS and
IPSec solutions in our VPN portfolio.  So they are not mutually exclusive
and one is not 'right' over the other....depends on customer and
application.  If an operator chooses not to deploy all types then that is
OK, but then it is up to the operator/customer to decide if the customer
requirements can be met with whatever VPN technology is being used...so, in
addition to functionality, clarity on QoS and availability performance seems
essential (I have not fully understood this yet for latter 2).
	neil