RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request

[WEG] I think I answered this with my response to Stephane, but if you still have questions after that response, let me know.

> > "In addition, customers may request the use
> >    of BGP multipath for faster failover or better load balancing, which
> >    has the net effect of installing more active routes into the table,
> >    rather than simply selecting the single best path."
>
> True, but that's independent of L3VPN.
>
[WEG] That may be so, but my experience has been that SPs are less likely to be willing to enable MP for standard internet traffic, while they will do it for L3VPN. The application as an enterprise network instead of internet connectivity drives a different set of expectations about the performance of the network, design tradeoffs that must be made at the carrier's behest, etc. Keep in mind that in many cases, L3VPNs are replacing old point-to-point networks or L2VPNs using legacy Frame Relay, ATM, or L2TPv3. The customers often don't want to make major architectural changes to their routing, and therefore expect the SP to do the same things that they were doing between their routers before. This may well include multipath. Therefore it's more pertinent in this context.

Thanks
Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.