RE: call for discussion on draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-03. txt
[email protected] Tue, 20 May 2003 16:13:24 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ppvpn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Eric > Richard> The RADIUS discovery draft is the only one > that includes CE > Richard> authentication > > I'm not sure that having the CE authenticated by the SP is > that interesting > in this context, as such authentication could be done by > the PE. If the > authentication could be proxied to a radius server > controlled by the > customer, that might be more interesting, as it would > be immune to SP > misconfigurations. RS> What is not considered to be interesting to some parties, may well be interesting to others. I do consider the idea of VPN site authentication being an integral part of a VPN site discovery mechanism to be an interesting feature. > Richard> and meets all the discovery requirements > identified within the > Richard> PPVPN WG so far including "Limits VPN information > to only those PEs > Richard> involved in that VPN", "Extendible to provide > information in > Richard> additional to VPN endpoint IP address" and > "Supports inter-provider > Richard> VPNs". > > The BGP-based discovery procedure meets these requirements. RS> I think how well the BGP discovery mechanism is perceived to meet the above requirements depends on how the requirements are interpreted. In the case of limiting VPN information to only those PEs involved in the VPN, in the BGP discovery process PEs broadcast VPN membership information for all the VPNs that they are members of, to all the other PEs in the network. This is done regardless of whether the other PEs in the network are members of the VPN or not and is a receiver based filtering process in which receiving PEs have to filter out the relevant information for the VPNs that they belong to. Information for VPNs that a receiving PE is not a member of can be discarded (or retained for future use). The point being that the *distribution* of VPN information is not limited to those PEs involved in a particular VPN, although the storing of this information can be. In the 'Extendible to provide information in addition to VPN endpoint IP address' case, in BGP the L2 information TLV includes information about the encapsulation type and the L2 Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) and could be extended (or new TLVs defined) to provide further information. However, distribution of p2p information is not supported as all VPN information must be broadcast to all PEs. This issue has been discussed already on the mailing list but I do not believe any vital pieces of information that must be distributed on a p2p basis were identified. I would just like to point out that this is something that perhaps should be taken into consideration when selecting a discovery mechanism. Richard