The MPLS WG Archive

["Hamid Ould-Brahim" <hbrahim@nortelnetworks.com>]

Paul,

Your scalability question is really related to PE's resources (e.g., CPU,
memory)
On this respect building vpns with virtual routers is
no different than any other application

VPN/PE scalability depends also on factors like the software/hardware
architecture of the PE and  whether the "virtualization" aspect of VR is
built in within the PE infrastructure day one.

However no matter how powerful is the PE, there is always a limit
on what you can do on it.

Regards
Hamid


Paul Tasillo wrote:

> Will the overhead of running Virtual Routers impact the scalablity of the
> draft-ouldbrahim-vpn-vr-01 approach? That is, there must be a limit to the
> number of VRs a PE can handle and thus a limit to the number of VPNs the PE
> can handle. Is this true?
>
> -Paul (not Paul Doolan)
> Paul Tasillo
> Tivoli Systems
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Jim
> Guichard
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 8:43 AM
> To: Barry Hass; erosen@cisco.com; Paul Doolan
> Cc: yakov@cisco.com; rnewcomb@ennovatenetowrks.com.tivoli.com;
> mpls@UU.NET; diego@estos.upc.es
> Subject: RE: VPN solution - White flag ?
>
> Barry,
>
> the answer is no. There are various ways to design Internet connectivity
> within this environment, one of which is to carry full Internet routes on
> the PE router. Other options include default routing from VPN sites to a
> central site that has Internet connectivity, another is to offload the
> Internet routes from the PE and run direct eBGP sessions from the VPN site
> to the Internet exit point. Which option is actually taken will depend on
> the specific design requirements. Jim
>
> At 08:37 26/10/2000 -0400, Barry Hass wrote:
> >Eric,
> >
> >Doesn't a PE router have to handle the full Internet routing
> >table, plus VRFs for whatever VPNs it is supporting? I think
> >that what some folks are suggesting is that BGP (not "the box",
> >but BGP specifically) is already bumping up against scaling
> >limits at 100,000 or so routes, and that burdening it with the
> >additional responsibility of managing VPNs is not such a great
> >idea. ("Some folks" please correct me if I'm wrong). Can you
> >comment on that?
> >
> >By the way, I don't have enough information to have an opinion
> >on this. I'm just trying to steer the discussion back to what
> >I thought was an interesting technical question before the
> >insults started to fly.
> >
> >> In the  NBVPN routing environment, it is  not true that
> >> anyone  in the world
> >> needs to be  able to reach anyone else  in the world.  Each
> >> VPN  has its own
> >> inter-connectivity  matrix,  much  smaller  than the
> >> Internet  connectivity
> >> matrix.  Now if you add up all the VPN routes, summed over
> >> all VPNs, you may
> >> indeed get  a much larger  number than the  number of
> >> Internet  routes.  But
> >> there is no one box which needs  to hold them all.  Since an
> >> instance of BGP
> >> runs in a particular box, and only  has to deal with the
> >> routes that need to
> >> be in that box,  you don't run up against the same  box
> >> scaling problems you
> >> run up  against in  the Internet routing  environment.  You
> >> can  design your
> >> system to  have a given box  handle as many routes  or as few
> >>  routes as you
> >> want.
> >
>
> Jim Guichard CCIE #2069
> Network Design Consultant EMEA
> Global Solutions Engineering
>
> +44 208 756 8806
> Mobile: +44 7802 809763