[j-nsp] Full table in L3VPN

[Daniel Roesen]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 08:53:19PM +0200, Johan Borch wrote:
> Is it a good or bad idea to run IP transit (full table ipv4 & ipv6) in a
> MPLS L3VPN and rely on the MP-BGP to carry routes around or is it better to
> skip the MPLS part and run iBGP between the routers with transit links?

I'm very much in favor of this approach for a couple of reasons, some
have been already mentioned. Problem was/is, that everytime I considered
deployment, I found features missing for L3VPNs that were required and
present for the "global table", as well as scaling limitations (think of
older M-Series - not sure offhand what today's figures look like for
current generation architectures).

As someone for whom L3VPNs are daily business, treating Internet just as
another L3VPN feels very much natural and desireable. But ask the
enterprise operator next door, I guess you'll get a completely different
PoV. :)

Boy how I would love to get rid of rib-groups, finally get proper
management interface routing separation etc... sigh.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0