From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 7 15:46:49 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00223 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeKZI-0008La-Lz for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:46:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i07KkKcx032080 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:46:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeKZI-0008LL-HN for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:46:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00195 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:46:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AeKZH-0002ZG-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:46:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AeKXQ-0002UH-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:44:25 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AeKWH-0002PK-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:43:13 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AeKWH-0007No-Eg for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:43:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeKW5-00088i-2K; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:43:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AeKVI-00087R-US for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:42:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29918 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:42:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AeKVH-0002LP-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:42:11 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AeKTR-0002DC-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:40:17 -0500 Received: from smtp104.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.169.223]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AeKRu-00020w-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:38:42 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO RAKHILAPTOP) (vsharma87@63.206.92.44 with login) by smtp104.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2004 20:38:13 -0000 From: "Vishal Sharma" To: "L2PPVPN" Cc: "Loa Andersson" , Subject: L2 Framework: Bridge modules and Emulated LAN I/Fs Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:37:54 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, I'm seeking some clarifications on the L2 Framework document, and would be grateful for inputs. i) On pp. 7/8, when discussing the VPLS reference model, the document specifies that each bridge module has a single emulated LAN interface, but then goes on to say that "nor does it specify the number of VPLS instances which may attach to a bridge module over a single "Emulated LAN interface"." How can this be possible? Would one not need one bridge module per VPLS instance (just as one needs one VPLS forwarder per VPLS instance), especially if each bridge module has only a single emulated LAN interface? ii) The document then goes to specify 3 models for VPLSs. My question is what is the difference between Models 1 and 2? How does a single bridge module support multiple VPLS instances through a single emulated LAN interface? My understanding is that the only way to do so would be if each instance was a VLAN on a common LAN, but then does this not reduce to Model 1? Thanks much for your inputs. -Vishal **************************************************************** Vishal Sharma, Ph.D. Metanoia, Inc. (Critical Systems Thinking) 1600 Villa Street, Unit 352 Mountain View, CA 94041-1174 Phone: +1 408-530-8313. Cell: +1 408-394-6321 Email: v.sharma@ieee.org. http://www.metanoia-inc.com **************************************************************** From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 8 14:57:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08246 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:57:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AegGm-00031F-Fb for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:56:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i08Juef9011604 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:56:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AegGm-000315-4S for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:56:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08233 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:56:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AegGj-0002Q7-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:56:37 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AegEp-0002M9-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:54:43 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AegDG-0002IU-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:53:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AegDF-0002te-2e; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AegCt-0002sf-Fw for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:52:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08160 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 14:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AegCp-0002H4-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:52:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AegB3-0002D9-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:50:48 -0500 Received: from howler.tri.sbc.com ([205.173.58.4]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aeg9r-00028U-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:49:31 -0500 Received: from sbctri.tri.sbc.com (mayhem-webdmz.tri.sbc.com [144.60.9.139]) by howler.tri.sbc.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i08JnVgF022207 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:49:31 -0600 (CST) Received: from TRIMAIL2.ad.tri.sbc.com (trimail2.tri.sbc.com [144.60.55.227]) by sbctri.tri.sbc.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i08JnQSJ029331 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:49:26 -0600 (CST) Received: by trimail2 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:49:26 -0600 Message-ID: <905A1C4ABF353F4C8CC16FA9F53DD0D61D610B@trimail2> From: "Serbest, Yetik" To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: L2VPN Requirements Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:49:26 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3D620.85915E60" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38 Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=HTML_60_70,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D620.85915E60 Content-Type: text/plain Russ Housley (L2VPN WG Security Adviser) sent his comments on L2VPN requirements draft. Below please find his comments, which are categorized into two sections as "comments for further discussion" and "comments with proposed resolutions". Thanks, yetik Comments for further discussion: =============================== 1------------ 4.5.2 Access control A L2VPN solution MAY also have the ability to activate the appropriate filtering capabilities upon request of a customer. Russ: Where does the identity information to make the access control decision function come from? Is there a mechanism to ensure that the identity information is authentic. Editor: Should we specify a mechanism? Comments with proposed resolutions: ================================== 1------------ 4.1 Scope of emulation - If sequencing is not turned on, BPDUs on a pseudowire may get out of order with respect to data packets and with respect to each other. - VPLS frames can get duplicated if the sequencing option isn't turned on. The data frames on the pseudowires are sent in IP datagrams, and under certain failure scenarios, IP networks can duplicate packets. If the pseudowire data transmission protocol does not ensure sequence of data packets, frames can be duplicated or received out of sequence. If the customer's BPDU frames are sent as data packets, then BPDU frames can be duplicated or mis- sequenced. Russ: Is it a requirement that sequencing can be turned on? Also, can one turn it on and another turn it off? Or, is it a system-wide setting? Resolution: Remove the first bullet point, as it is covered in the second one. Replace "sequencing" by "PW sequencing". 2------------ 4.1 Scope of emulation L2VPN protocols SHOULD NOT interfere with existing Layer 2 protocols and standards of the Layer 2 network the customer is managing. If they may impact customer Layer 2 protocols that are sent over the VPLS, then these impacts MUST be documented. .... .... The interaction between L2VPN and the customer equipment SHOULD comply with existing native protocols and specifications. In case, a L2VPN solution supports only a subset of these specifications, the exceptions MUST be documented. Editor: Removed the second paragraph, as it is repetitive. 3------------ 4.2 Traffic Types It is desirable to support efficient replication of broadcast and multicast traffic. Russ: Is this sentence a SHOULD statement? Editor: I believe it was a "SHOULD", and I think it was changed based on the L2VPN-DT discussions before. Resolution: Replace the sentence with "Support efficient replication of broadcast and multicast traffic is highly desirable." 4------------ 4.5 Security .... - Tampering with data forwarding o Incorrect MAC learning entry o Incorrect label Russ: What kind of label? Resolution: "Incorrect PW label". 5------------ Russ: Confused by Section 4.10, CE-to-CE and CE-to-PE link requirements. The first part discusses CE-to-PE links, and the second part discusses PE-to-PE links. There is no discussion of CE-to-CE links. Resolution: The title of Section 4.10 should read "CE-to-PE and PE-to-PE Link Requirements" not "CE-to-CE and CE-to-PE Link Requirements". The only possible CE-to-CE links in the service model is backdoor links and we already have some requirements in place to handle those cases. 6------------ 5.5.3 Value added security services Security measures employed by a L2VPN service SHOULD NOT restrict implementation of customer based security add-ons. Russ: At what layer? L2 (like 802.10b) is above the MAC, but it could encrypt VLAN tags. This makes other requirements impossible for other requirements to be met. I think L3, L4, and L7 need to be accommodated. L1 and L2 can cause problems. I think that it is appropriate to discuss the issue in this section. Then, the concluding requirement is that the L2VPN service must not interfere with security mechanisms employed at L3 or higher, but that the L2VPN service may interfere security mechanisms in L1 and L2. Resolution: Replace the text with the following. "L2VPN services MUST NOT interfere with the security mechanisms employed at Layer-3 and higher layers by customers. Layer-2 security mechanisms, such as 802.10b ([IEEE_802.10]), MAY NOT work with the L2VPN services, when the service-delimiting VLAN-Ids are encrypted." 7------------ Russ: Personally, I find Figure 2 confusing. It will take more space, but a separate Figure for each case may help by providing whitespace around them. Plus, the discussion of each case can be with it. There is not currently text to go with each case, which adds to my confusion. Without a discussion of each one, how can the reader tell the MUST from the SHOULD. Resolution: Done as follows (Figures are not shown): L2VPN solutions SHOULD support at least the types of physical or link-layer connectivity arrangements shown in Figure 2-4 (in addition to the case shown in Figure 1). As in Figure 2, a CE can be dual homed to an SP or to two different SPs via diverse access networks. Figure 2 Dual-Homed Access of CE Devices. Resiliency of the L2VPN service can be further enhanced as shown in Figure 3, where CE's, connected via a "back door" connection, connect to the same SP or to different SPs. Figure 3 Backdoor Links Between CE Devices. Arbitrary combinations of the above methods, with a few examples shown in Figure 4 SHOULD be supportable by any L2VPN solution. Figure 4 Combination of Dual-Homing and Backdoor Links for CE Devices. 8------------ 6.7 Security The security requirements are stated in Section 4.5. The requirements provided in [PPVPN-REQTS] and in [L3REQTS] SHOULD be met as appropriate. Russ: What does "as appropriate" mean? Resolution: Replace the text as follows: 6.7 Security The security requirements are stated in Section 4.5. The security requirements provided in [PPVPN_REQTS] SHOULD be met. The security requirements, except Layer-3 and higher layer dependent ones, specified in [L3VPN_REQTS] SHOULD be met. 9------------ Russ: Missing references for Virtual LAN and IPLS in Section 3.4, for DSCP and 802.1p in Section 4.7.2, for 802.1s in Section 5.7.4, Resolution: Added [IEEE_802.1Q] for VLAN, [L2VPN_FR] for IPLS, [RFC2474] for DSCP, [IEEE_802.1D] for 802.1p, and [IEEE_802.1s] for 802.1s, 10------------ Non-ASCII characters, spelling errors, grammatical errors, inconsistent spelling etc... ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D620.85915E60 Content-Type: text/html

Russ Housley (L2VPN WG Security Adviser) sent his comments on L2VPN requirements draft. Below please find his comments, which are categorized into two sections as "comments for further discussion" and "comments with proposed resolutions".

 

Thanks,

yetik

 

Comments for further discussion:

===============================

 

1------------

 

 4.5.2  Access control

   A L2VPN solution MAY also have the ability to activate the

   appropriate filtering capabilities upon request of a customer.

 

Russ:

Where does the identity information to make the access control decision function come from?  Is there a mechanism to ensure that the identity information is authentic.

 

Editor:

Should we specify a mechanism?

 

Comments with proposed resolutions:

==================================

 

1------------

 

 4.1 Scope of emulation

     - If sequencing is not turned on, BPDUs on a pseudowire may get

     out of order with respect to data packets and with respect to each

     other.

     - VPLS frames can get duplicated if the sequencing option isn't

     turned on. The data frames on the pseudowires are sent in IP

     datagrams, and under certain failure scenarios, IP networks can

     duplicate packets. If the pseudowire data transmission protocol

     does not ensure sequence of data packets, frames can be duplicated

     or received out of sequence. If the customer's BPDU frames are

     sent as data packets, then BPDU frames can be duplicated or mis-

     sequenced.

 

Russ:

Is it a requirement that sequencing can be turned on? Also, can one turn it on and another turn it off?  Or, is it a system-wide setting?

 

Resolution:

Remove the first bullet point, as it is covered in the second one. Replace "sequencing" by "PW sequencing".

 

2------------

 

 4.1 Scope of emulation

   L2VPN protocols SHOULD NOT interfere with existing Layer 2 protocols

   and standards of the Layer 2 network the customer is managing.  If

   they may impact customer Layer 2 protocols that are sent over the

   VPLS, then these impacts MUST be documented.

....

....

 

   The interaction between L2VPN and the customer equipment SHOULD

   comply with existing native protocols and specifications. In case, a

   L2VPN solution supports only a subset of these specifications, the

   exceptions MUST be documented.

 

Editor:

Removed the second paragraph, as it is repetitive.

 

3------------

 

 4.2 Traffic Types

   It is desirable to support efficient replication of broadcast and multicast traffic.

 

Russ:  

Is this sentence a SHOULD statement?

 

Editor:

I believe it was a "SHOULD", and I think it was changed based on the L2VPN-DT discussions before.

 

Resolution:

Replace the sentence with "Support efficient replication of broadcast and multicast traffic is highly desirable."

 

4------------

 

 4.5 Security

....

    - Tampering with data forwarding

       o Incorrect MAC learning entry

       o Incorrect label

 

Russ:

What kind of label?

 

Resolution:

"Incorrect PW label".

 

5------------

 

Russ:

Confused by Section 4.10, CE-to-CE and CE-to-PE link requirements. The first part discusses CE-to-PE links, and the second part discusses PE-to-PE links.  There is no discussion of CE-to-CE links.

 

Resolution:

The title of Section 4.10 should read "CE-to-PE and PE-to-PE Link Requirements" not "CE-to-CE and CE-to-PE Link Requirements". The only possible CE-to-CE links in the service model is backdoor links and we already have some requirements in place to handle those cases.

 

6------------

 

 5.5.3  Value added security services

   Security measures employed by a L2VPN service SHOULD NOT restrict

   implementation of customer based security add-ons.

 

Russ:

At what layer?  L2 (like 802.10b) is above the MAC, but it could encrypt VLAN tags. This makes other requirements impossible for other requirements to be met.  I think L3, L4, and L7 need to be accommodated.  L1 and L2 can cause problems. I think that it is appropriate to discuss the issue in this section. Then, the concluding requirement is that the L2VPN service must not interfere with security mechanisms employed at L3 or higher, but that the L2VPN service may interfere security mechanisms in L1 and L2.

 

Resolution:

Replace the text with the following.

"L2VPN services MUST NOT interfere with the security mechanisms employed at Layer-3 and higher layers by customers. Layer-2 security mechanisms, such as 802.10b ([IEEE_802.10]), MAY NOT work with the L2VPN services, when the service-delimiting VLAN-Ids are encrypted."

 

7------------

 

Russ:

Personally, I find Figure 2 confusing. It will take more space, but a separate Figure for each case may help by providing whitespace around them. Plus, the discussion of each case can be with it. There is not currently text to go with each case, which adds to my confusion.  Without a discussion of each one, how can the reader tell the MUST from the SHOULD.

 

Resolution:

Done as follows (Figures are not shown):

 

   L2VPN solutions

   SHOULD support at least the types of physical or link-layer

   connectivity arrangements shown in Figure 2-4 (in addition to the case

   shown in Figure 1). As in Figure 2, a CE can be dual homed to an SP or to two

   different SPs via diverse access networks.

 

         Figure 2 Dual-Homed Access of CE Devices.

 

   Resiliency of the L2VPN service can be further

   enhanced as shown in Figure 3, where CE's, connected via a "back

   door" connection, connect to the same SP or to different SPs.

 

         Figure 3 Backdoor Links Between CE Devices.

 

   Arbitrary combinations of the above methods, with a few examples shown in

   Figure 4 SHOULD be supportable by any L2VPN solution.

 

         Figure 4 Combination of Dual-Homing and Backdoor Links for CE Devices.

 

8------------

 

 6.7 Security

   The security requirements are stated in Section 4.5. The

   requirements provided in [PPVPN-REQTS] and in [L3REQTS] SHOULD be

   met as appropriate.

 

Russ:

What does "as appropriate" mean?

 

Resolution:

Replace the text as follows:

 6.7 Security

   The security requirements are stated in Section 4.5. The security

   requirements provided in [PPVPN_REQTS] SHOULD be met. The security

   requirements, except Layer-3 and higher layer dependent ones,

   specified in [L3VPN_REQTS] SHOULD be met.

 

9------------

 

Russ:

Missing references for Virtual LAN and IPLS in Section 3.4, for DSCP and 802.1p in Section 4.7.2, for 802.1s in Section 5.7.4,

 

Resolution:

Added [IEEE_802.1Q] for VLAN, [L2VPN_FR] for IPLS, [RFC2474] for DSCP, [IEEE_802.1D] for 802.1p, and [IEEE_802.1s] for 802.1s,

 

10------------

 

Non-ASCII characters, spelling errors, grammatical errors, inconsistent spelling etc...

 

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D620.85915E60-- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 12 14:12:36 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11835 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:12:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag7Ts-00011d-5A for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:12:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0CJC8e0003935 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:12:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag7Tr-00011O-U7 for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:12:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11829 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag7Td-0001kz-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:11:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag7Ri-0001gz-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:09:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag7Pu-0001cP-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:08:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag7Pt-0000qp-S8; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ag7Pl-0000oJ-Ti for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:07:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11587 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:07:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag7Pj-0001an-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:07:51 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag7Nn-0001Tx-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:05:52 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ag7Lu-0001OB-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:03:54 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jan 2004 11:03:38 -0800 Received: from cisco.com (erosen-u10.cisco.com [161.44.70.36]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0CJ3LK6015335; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:03:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200401121903.i0CJ3LK6015335@rtp-core-2.cisco.com> To: "Vishal Sharma" cc: "L2PPVPN" , "Loa Andersson" Subject: Re: L2 Framework: Bridge modules and Emulated LAN I/Fs In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:37:54 -0800. Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:03:20 -0500 From: Eric Rosen Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > My question is what is the difference between Models 1 and 2? > How does a single bridge module support multiple VPLS instances > through a single emulated LAN interface? > My understanding is that the only way to do so would be if each > instance was a VLAN on a common LAN, but then does this not > reduce to Model 1? In Model 1, the VLANs do not have separate PWs. There's a set of PWs for the Emulated LAN, and 802.1Q tagging is used to indicate which of the packets on those PWs belong to which VLANs. In Model 2, each VLAN has its own set of PWs. From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Jan 12 22:44:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10986 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgFTS-0002Aj-3p for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:44:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0D3iE1n008343 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:44:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgFTR-0002AU-V6 for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:44:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10971 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:44:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgFTO-0000Q4-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:44:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgFSP-0000Mg-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:43:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgFQP-0000HF-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:41:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgFQK-00024p-Oh; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:41:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgFPz-00023H-5P for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:40:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10821 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:40:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgFPv-0000El-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:40:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgFO6-00007E-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:38:43 -0500 Received: from smtp105.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.169.225]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgFMU-0007mo-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:37:02 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO RAKHILAPTOP) (vsharma87@63.206.90.45 with login) by smtp105.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jan 2004 03:37:02 -0000 From: "Vishal Sharma" To: Cc: "L2PPVPN" , "Loa Andersson" Subject: RE: L2 Framework: Bridge modules and Emulated LAN I/Fs Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:36:54 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200401121903.i0CJ3LK6015335@rtp-core-2.cisco.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, Thanks very much for your clarification, that clears my doubt. Perhaps it would be useful to add these 2 explanatory phrases in the next rev. of the document, they make things much clearer. Also, one follow-up question: so in both cases there is still only a single _VPLS_ instance, right? (Except that in model 1 the VLAN tags distinguish packets from different VLANs, and in model 2, the packets from different VLANs ride on separate sets of PWs, each of which runs between the PEs serving the VPLS in question). Thanks, -Vishal > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 11:03 AM > To: Vishal Sharma > Cc: L2PPVPN; Loa Andersson > Subject: Re: L2 Framework: Bridge modules and Emulated LAN I/Fs > > > > > My question is what is the difference between Models 1 and 2? > > How does a single bridge module support multiple VPLS instances > > through a single emulated LAN interface? > > My understanding is that the only way to do so would be if each > > instance was a VLAN on a common LAN, but then does this not > > reduce to Model 1? > > In Model 1, the VLANs do not have separate PWs. There's a set > of PWs for > the Emulated LAN, and 802.1Q tagging is used to indicate > which of the > packets on those PWs belong to which VLANs. > > In Model 2, each VLAN has its own set of PWs. From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 13 10:31:11 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18813 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:31:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgQV9-0001Xo-LZ for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:30:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0DFUhoC005933 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:30:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgQV9-0001Xc-C6 for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:30:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18726 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:30:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgQV7-0006J2-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:30:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgQTH-0006E0-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:28:47 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgQRv-00067r-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:27:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgQRa-0001Os-AC; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:27:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgQRJ-0001Ms-9l for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:26:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18495 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:26:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgQRG-000659-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:26:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgQPR-00060Y-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:24:50 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgQOb-0005uD-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:23:57 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2004 07:23:48 -0800 Received: from cisco.com (erosen-u10.cisco.com [161.44.70.36]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0DFNKLE026231; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:23:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200401131523.i0DFNKLE026231@rtp-core-1.cisco.com> To: "Vishal Sharma" cc: "L2PPVPN" , "Loa Andersson" Subject: Re: L2 Framework: Bridge modules and Emulated LAN I/Fs In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:36:54 -0800. Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:23:20 -0500 From: Eric Rosen Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Vishal> Also, one follow-up question: so in both cases there is Vishal> still only a single _VPLS_ instance, right? Vishal> (Except that in model Vishal> 1 the VLAN tags distinguish packets from different VLANs, and Vishal> in model 2, the packets from different VLANs ride on separate Vishal> sets of PWs, each of which runs between the PEs serving the Vishal> VPLS in question). In my use of the term "VPLS instance", if there is a separate set of PWs, there is a separate "VPLS instance". I'll try to make this clearer. From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 13 16:04:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12926 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:04:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgVi1-00037z-RS for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:04:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0DL4LlP012022 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:04:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgVi1-00037p-NR for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:04:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12869 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVi0-0004qq-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:04:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVgH-0004o8-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:02:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVf4-0004lE-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:01:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgVen-0002qi-Ez; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:01:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AgVeD-0002pi-22 for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:00:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12734 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:00:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVeB-0004i2-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:00:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVcJ-0004eR-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:58:28 -0500 Received: from smtp015.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.173.59]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AgVaY-0004ax-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:56:38 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO RAKHILAPTOP) (vsharma87@63.206.93.130 with login) by smtp015.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jan 2004 20:56:36 -0000 From: "Vishal Sharma" To: Cc: "L2PPVPN" , "Loa Andersson" Subject: RE: L2 Framework: Bridge modules and Emulated LAN I/Fs Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:56:26 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <200401131523.i0DFNKLE026231@rtp-core-1.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Eric, Thanks for the clarification, but I think there's still room for some confusion in the document, as I explain below. > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Eric Rosen > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:23 AM > To: Vishal Sharma > Cc: L2PPVPN; Loa Andersson > Subject: Re: L2 Framework: Bridge modules and Emulated LAN I/Fs > > > Vishal> Also, one follow-up question: so in both cases there is > Vishal> still only a single _VPLS_ instance, right? > Vishal> (Except that in model > Vishal> 1 the VLAN tags distinguish packets from different VLANs, and > Vishal> in model 2, the packets from different VLANs ride on separate > Vishal> sets of PWs, each of which runs between the PEs serving the > Vishal> VPLS in question). > > > In my use of the term "VPLS instance", if there is a separate > set of PWs, > there is a separate "VPLS instance". I'll try to make this clearer. i) The framework specifies that there is one VPLS forwarder per VPLS instance per PE. So, in this case, is it also implied that there are multiple VPLS forwarders, one per set of PWs for each VLAN (or, in your terms, one per "VPLS instance")? ii) Also, even with a separate set of PWS for each VLAN, isn't one VPLS forwarder sufficient for the job? And, if it is, then it seems that, by the specification above, such a VPLS should also be counted as having only one VPLS instance. iii) And, the framework document then states: "Each VPLS instance is thought of as a VLAN (in effect, an "Emulated VLAN"), and the set of VPLS instances are treated as a set of VLANs on a common LAN." Why "thought of"? Isn't it simply then that each VPLS instance _is_ a VLAN (or rather each VLAN is a VPLS (instance)). But if that is so, what is the entity here that corresponds to the "common LAN?" So far, I had assumed that the "common LAN" _is_ the VPLS, but this does not appear to be the case here. Rather, it appears that it is the collection of VPLS's (one per VLAN) that constitutes the "common LAN" here. Is this what is implied? Thanks, -Vishal From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 15 10:02:07 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09513 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ah907-0004kA-DS for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:01:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0FF1dQk018228 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:01:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ah907-0004jv-8Z for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:01:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09506 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:01:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ah904-0006Tn-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:01:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ah8zG-0006Rk-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:00:46 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ah8yj-0006Oq-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:00:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ah8ya-0004Xv-Rr; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:00:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ah8yF-0004WO-0o for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:59:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09325 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:59:40 -0500 (EST) From: Moshe.Aharon@ecitele.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ah8yD-0006NW-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:59:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ah8xG-0006Kq-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:58:42 -0500 Received: from mink.ecitele.com ([147.234.1.100]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ah8wv-0006If-00; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:58:21 -0500 Received: from olive.ecitele.com (ilsmtp04.ecitele.com [147.234.8.125]) by mink.ecitele.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0FEh3gN004482; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:52:43 +0200 (IST) Subject: l2vpn signaling (LDP/CR-LDP/RSVP-TE) To: l2vpn@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.2b (Intl) 16 December 1999 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:28:12 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ILSMTP04/ECI Telecom(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 01/15/2004 04:58:12 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Hello. Since the decision (RFC3468) to not progress CR-LDP, it seems that in a PWE3 ethernet VC, or any traffic-engineered l2vpn-ldp solution, A PE will signal VC-LSPs using LDP on top of pre-signaled Tunnel-LSPs using RSVP-TE. This forces any edge equipment to support both RSVP-TE and LDP. Is this the right way to go (or am I missing something, and the above observation is incorrect)? Have the WGs considered a PWE3/VPLS signaling using RSVP? Thanks! /Moshe From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 15 11:28:08 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13797 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:28:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhALM-0001Ct-FB for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:27:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0FGRegZ004633 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:27:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhALM-0001Ce-9k for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:27:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13773 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:27:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhALL-0002CC-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:27:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AhAKW-0002A8-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:26:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhAJr-00026v-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:26:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhAJk-00016a-SI; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:26:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhAJS-00015x-0c for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:25:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13696 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:25:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhAJQ-00025R-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:25:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AhAIY-000235-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:24:46 -0500 Received: from smtp7.hy.skanova.net ([195.67.199.140]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhAIB-000201-00; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:24:24 -0500 Received: from pi.se (h45n1fls31o888.telia.com [213.67.172.45]) by smtp7.hy.skanova.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0FGOFa8024497; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:24:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4006BEA3.1090507@pi.se> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:24:03 +0100 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Moshe.Aharon@ecitele.com CC: l2vpn@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: l2vpn signaling (LDP/CR-LDP/RSVP-TE) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Moshe, this is a horse and cart issue. Most commonly you'll have an MPLS-enabled network using TE and L3vpn, you will do TE by RSVP-TE. If you introduce l2vpn into that network why would you want to add an extra protocol for that specific TE? /Loa Moshe.Aharon@ecitele.com wrote: >Hello. > >Since the decision (RFC3468) to not progress CR-LDP, it seems that in a >PWE3 ethernet VC, or any traffic-engineered l2vpn-ldp solution, A PE will >signal VC-LSPs using LDP on top of pre-signaled Tunnel-LSPs using RSVP-TE. >This forces any edge equipment to support both RSVP-TE and LDP. > >Is this the right way to go (or am I missing something, and the above >observation is incorrect)? > >Have the WGs considered a PWE3/VPLS signaling using RSVP? > >Thanks! >/Moshe > > > > > > -- Loa Andersson mobile +46 739 81 21 64 From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 15 12:43:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16853 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:43:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhBWB-00068D-8G for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:42:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0FHgthC023563 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:42:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhBWB-00067y-49 for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:42:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16845 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:42:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhBW9-0005wv-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:42:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AhBVB-0005tw-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:41:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhBUR-0005q9-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:41:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhBUM-0005yA-9w; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:41:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhBU6-0005x1-HX for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:40:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16741 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:40:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhBU4-0005ou-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:40:44 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AhBT8-0005lm-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:39:46 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhBSW-0005iE-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:39:09 -0500 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jan 2004 09:41:34 +0000 Received: from chrlewis-w2k02.cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-674.cisco.com [10.21.98.162]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0FHcZVN025574; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:38:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040115113206.02e3da68@fargo.cisco.com> X-Sender: chrlewis@fargo.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:38:35 -0600 To: Moshe.Aharon@ecitele.com From: Chris Lewis Subject: l2vpn signaling (LDP/CR-LDP/RSVP-TE) Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Moshe, I think it's a question of where you want your TE to operate within your network. If you want to take TE all the way out to the PE devices, I see no reason why a specific implementation can't use RSVP to signal the outer label value rather than LDP. If (as many folks decide) you want to restrict the use of TE to somewhere more within the core of your network, the point is moot. Chris Message: 1 From: Moshe.Aharon@ecitele.com Subject: l2vpn signaling (LDP/CR-LDP/RSVP-TE) To: l2vpn@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:28:12 +0200 Hello. Since the decision (RFC3468) to not progress CR-LDP, it seems that in a PWE3 ethernet VC, or any traffic-engineered l2vpn-ldp solution, A PE will signal VC-LSPs using LDP on top of pre-signaled Tunnel-LSPs using RSVP-TE. This forces any edge equipment to support both RSVP-TE and LDP. Is this the right way to go (or am I missing something, and the above observation is incorrect)? Have the WGs considered a PWE3/VPLS signaling using RSVP? Thanks! /Moshe --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:24:03 +0100 From: Loa Andersson To: Moshe.Aharon@ecitele.com CC: l2vpn@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: l2vpn signaling (LDP/CR-LDP/RSVP-TE) Moshe, this is a horse and cart issue. Most commonly you'll have an MPLS-enabled network using TE and L3vpn, you will do TE by RSVP-TE. If you introduce l2vpn into that network why would you want to add an extra protocol for that specific TE? /Loa Moshe.Aharon@ecitele.com wrote: >Hello. > >Since the decision (RFC3468) to not progress CR-LDP, it seems that in a >PWE3 ethernet VC, or any traffic-engineered l2vpn-ldp solution, A PE will >signal VC-LSPs using LDP on top of pre-signaled Tunnel-LSPs using RSVP-TE. >This forces any edge equipment to support both RSVP-TE and LDP. > >Is this the right way to go (or am I missing something, and the above >observation is incorrect)? > >Have the WGs considered a PWE3/VPLS signaling using RSVP? > >Thanks! >/Moshe > > > > > > -- Loa Andersson mobile +46 739 81 21 64 From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 15 13:40:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19004 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:40:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhCP4-0000eG-Bf for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:39:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0FIdcpo002486 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:39:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhCP4-0000e1-3s for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:39:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18993 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:39:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhCP1-0000aE-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:39:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AhCO6-0000Yi-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:38:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhCNZ-0000XR-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:38:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhCNW-0000Pw-0q; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:38:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AhCN9-0000Iq-6t for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:37:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18946 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:37:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhCN6-0000W8-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:37:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AhCMB-0000Uj-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:36:39 -0500 Received: from natint2.juniper.net ([207.17.136.150] helo=kummer.juniper.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AhCLl-0000TA-00; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:36:14 -0500 Received: from kummer.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id i0FIZYPg031249; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:35:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net) Received: from localhost (kireeti@localhost) by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id i0FIZYfl031246; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:35:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: kummer.juniper.net: kireeti owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:35:34 -0800 (PST) From: Kireeti Kompella To: Moshe.Aharon@ecitele.com cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] l2vpn signaling (LDP/CR-LDP/RSVP-TE) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040115103027.V31112@kummer.juniper.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 Moshe.Aharon@ecitele.com wrote: > This forces any edge equipment to support both RSVP-TE and LDP. True, if the TE LSPs extend all the way to the PEs. However, I'm not aware of edge equipment that supports LDP but not RSVP-TE (or vice versa). > Have the WGs considered a PWE3/VPLS signaling using RSVP? If you believe that PWE3 signaling should be point-to-point (and the favorite example is carrying bandwidth/QoS information), yes, RSVP would be a fine vehicle. Note that the LSP hierarchy draft introduces the notion of 'targeted RSVP sessions', if you squint just right. The argument for doing VPLS with RSVP is weaker. Kireeti. ------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 20 17:21:09 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28416 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:21:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj4Ek-0006Oj-2H for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:20:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0KMKg2g024587 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:20:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj4Ej-0006OU-Tc for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:20:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28393 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:20:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj4Eh-0001q9-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:20:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj4Dl-0001mz-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:19:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj4DA-0001k6-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:19:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj4D8-00067x-5c; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:19:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj4D4-000670-7e for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:18:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28271 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:18:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj4D1-0001je-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:18:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj4CT-0001ey-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:18:22 -0500 Received: from web109.biz.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.174.219]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj4BM-0001Wp-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:17:12 -0500 Message-ID: <20040120215626.64812.qmail@web109.biz.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.251.97.179] by web109.biz.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:56:26 PST Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:56:26 -0800 (PST) From: Rick Wilder Subject: last call on terminology draft To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 This begins a 2-week last-call period for . Please let the list hear any remaining comments on this document. Rick From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Jan 20 18:22:06 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00085 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:22:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj5Bj-0003bf-32 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:21:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0KNLdM6013862 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:21:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj5Bi-0003bV-Nd for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:21:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00045 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:21:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj5Bf-0004wD-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:21:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj5Ak-0004tk-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:20:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj5AD-0004rf-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:20:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj5AC-0002aW-2E; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:20:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Aj59m-0002Px-OI for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:19:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00011 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:19:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj59j-0004qW-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:19:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj58n-0004oI-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:18:38 -0500 Received: from [64.47.48.7] (helo=exchange.timetra.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Aj57t-0004k1-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:17:41 -0500 Received: from vkompellaxp ([192.168.5.178] unverified) by exchange.timetra.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:17:11 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Vach Kompella" To: Cc: , , Subject: Call for agenda items Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:15:18 -0800 Organization: Alcatel USA Message-ID: <022101c3dfab$46659550$0101010a@eng.timetra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2004 23:17:11.0114 (UTC) FILETIME=[88081AA0:01C3DFAB] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is the first call for agenda items for Seoul. Please let us know: a) draft b) time required Please get your drafts in by the cut-off date. You won't get to present your draft in all its glory, so prepare to give the high points if it is a -00 draft, and the deltas if it is > -00. Lowest priority will be given to those whose drafts did not make the cut-off. Thanks. -Loa & Rick & Vach From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 21 16:28:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09675 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:28:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjPtf-0005lZ-2Z for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:28:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0LLSN6K022159 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:28:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjPte-0005lK-VJ for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:28:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09617 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:28:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjPtd-0002QG-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:28:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AjPsh-0002OQ-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:27:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjPsR-0002Ml-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:27:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjPsO-0005L7-Lu; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:27:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjPs6-0005JH-Af for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:26:46 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA09502; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:26:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200401212126.QAA09502@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:26:43 -0500 Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : Radius/L2TP Based VPLS Author(s) : J. Heinanen, M. Townsley, S. Bailey Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2004-1-21 This memo describes a simple mechanism to implement provider provisioned Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) using Radius for PE discovery and L2TP as the control and data plane protocol. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-1-21164243.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-1-21164243.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Jan 21 21:30:22 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22872 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:30:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjUbT-0002Ch-9v for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:29:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0M2TtgF008465 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:29:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjUbT-0002CS-4r for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:29:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22821 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:29:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjUbQ-0002CI-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:29:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AjUaa-00025X-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:29:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjUZe-0001yC-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:28:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjUZe-0001yo-9k; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:28:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjUZY-0001xK-SX for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:27:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22633 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:27:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjUZW-0001wP-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:27:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AjUYg-0001q5-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:27:03 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjUXy-0001d1-00; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:26:18 -0500 Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i0M2Pl819223; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:25:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:25:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Hamid Ould-Brahim" To: l3vpn@ietf.org, l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: ppvpn archives for l2/3 vpns wgs... Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:25:47 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Checking the current l2/3 vpn archives, I noticed they do not include all previous discussions from year 2000-2003. I think we need to refer/move the former two ppvpn archives to l2&3 vpn wg archives. There are in fact two archives for former ppvpn wg: 1) From July 2000 to September 2002 which can be found at http://ppvpn.francetelecom.com/ 2) and from October 2002 to August 2003 can be found at: http://standards.nortelnetworks.com/archives/ppvpn.html The current l3vpn and l2vpn wg archives are only from May 2003-today Jan 04 (and I think they overlap with ppvpn from May 2003-August 2003). Hamid. From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 22 06:52:16 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17487 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:52:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjdNG-0003UD-1t for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:51:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0MBpnN9013395 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:51:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjdNF-0003Ty-Oe for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:51:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17481 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:51:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjdNB-00056N-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:51:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AjdMJ-00054t-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:50:51 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjdLZ-00052z-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:50:05 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjdLX-0003NP-RG; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:50:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjdLT-0003Mi-3V for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:49:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17437 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:49:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjdLO-00052H-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:49:55 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AjdKS-0004zX-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:48:57 -0500 Received: from [80.74.100.67] (helo=antivir2) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjdJu-0004wG-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 06:48:23 -0500 Received: from 192.168.254.14 by antivir2 (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:21:01 +0200 Received: by TLV1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:19:32 +0200 Message-ID: From: Sasha Vainshtein To: "Mark Townsley (E-mail)" , "'steph@sandburst.com'" , "'jh@tutpro.com'" Cc: "L2VPN (E-mail)" , Elena Vinkler , Sharon Galtzur , Gonen Zilber , Alik Shimelmits Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:19:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Juha, Mark, Stephen and all, I'd like to raise a couple of issues with draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt. These issues both stem from comparison with draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpls-ldp-01.txt but are, IMO, orthogonal to "MPLS vs. IP" or "LDP vs. L2TP" plane(s). 1. draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpls-ldp-01.txt explicitly defines that, in order to achieve loop-free operation without running SPT across the VPLS, mesh of PE-to-PE Ethermet PWs *and* split-horizon forwarding (where frames received from one of the PE-to-PE PWs will never be forwarded to another such PW). I did not find any reference to split-horizon forwarding in draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt. My understanding is that this is simply an omission. Is this correct? If yes, I would suggest at least explicitly stating it in the draft' otherwise a detailed explanation is clearly required. 2. draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpls-ldp-01.txt defines, in addition to the "full mesh" VPLS, a hierarchical VPLS formed by two types of devices: - PE-rs (which is very much equivalent to the "full mesh" PE) - MTU-s (which is only connected to one or, possibly two PE-rs in "hub-and-spokes" topology). My first impression is that such a model is equally applicable to RADIUS/L2TPv3-based VPLS, but the procedures need to be adapted accordingly. Hopefully these comments will be useful. With best regards, Sasha Vainshtein email: sasha@axerra.com tel: +972-3-7659993 (office) +972-8-9254948 (res.) +972-58-674833 (cell.) From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 22 08:28:42 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20648 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:28:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjesX-0000zR-Uu for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:28:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0MDSDBl003799 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:28:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjesX-0000zC-PU for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:28:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20638 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:28:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AjesR-0002Ip-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:28:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ajeon-0002DP-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:24:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ajenh-00029G-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:23:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AjenV-0000YL-0Y; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ajemg-0000WE-Pw for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:22:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20488 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:22:08 -0500 (EST) From: richard.spencer@bt.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ajema-00027j-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:22:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AjekI-00023E-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:19:43 -0500 Received: from smtp2.smtp.bt.com ([217.32.164.150] helo=i2kc02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ajehf-0001x5-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:16:59 -0500 Received: from i2km98-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.85]) by i2kc02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:16:00 +0000 Received: from i2km41-ukdy.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.29]) by i2km98-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:15:25 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:15:23 -0000 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt Thread-Index: AcPg3iNRt2ESC0+PTzWCwPeRJjeqsAACoAok To: , , , Cc: , , , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2004 13:15:25.0183 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC0BC0F0:01C3E0E9] Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBhbSB2ZXJ5IHN1cHBvcnRpdmUgb2YgdXNpbmcgUkFESVVTIGZvciBkaXNjb3ZlcnkgYW5kIGRv IG5vdCBoYXZlIGFueSBpc3N1ZXMgd2l0aCBwcm92aWRlcnMgdGhhdCB3YW50IHRvIHVzZSBMMlRQ IGZvciBWUExTLCBidXQgSU1PIHRoaXMgc3BlY2lmaWMgZHJhZnQgaXMgbm90IG5lZWRlZC4NCg0K IA0KDQpJdCBpcyBhIGNvbWJpbmF0aW9uIG9mIGV4dHJhY3RzIGZyb20gdGhlIFJBRElVUyBkaXNj b3ZlcnkgZHJhZnQsIGV4dHJhY3RzIGZyb20gdGhlIEwyVFAgZHJhZnRzLCBhbmQgc29tZSB0ZXh0 IGRlc2NyaWJpbmcgVlBMUyBzZXJ2aWNlcyAod2hpY2ggaXMgZXF1aXZhbGVudCB0byB0aGUgdGV4 dCBpbiB0aGUgQkdQIGFuZCBMRFAgVlBMUyBkcmFmdHMgZGVzY3JpYmluZyB0aGUgc2FtZSB0aGlu ZykuIEkgY2Fubm90IGZpbmQgYW55dGhpbmcgbmV3L2RpZmZlcmVudCBvdGhlciB0aGFuIHN0YXRp bmcgd2hhdCB0aGUgQVZQIGF0dHJpYnV0ZXMgbXVzdCBiZS4NCg0KIA0KDQpJIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQg dGhlIFJBRElVUyBleHRyYWN0cyBvZiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IHNob3VsZCBiZSByZW1vdmVkIGFuZCBp dCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGV2ZWxvcGVkIHRvIGNyZWF0ZSBhIEwyVFAgZXF1aXZhbGVudCBvZiB0aGUg QkdQIGFuZCBMRFAgVlBMUyBkcmFmdHMuIFRoaXMgc2hvdWxkIGhlbHAgYWRkcmVzcyBTYXNoYSdz IGNvbmNlcm5zIGJlbG93LCBhbmQgUkFESVVTIGRpc2NvdmVyeSBjb3VsZCBiZSBtZW50aW9uZWQg YXMgYSBwb3NzaWJsZSBkaXNjb3ZlcnkgbWVjaGFuaXNtLCBhbG9uZyB3aXRoIEJHUCBhbmQgRE5T IChhcyBpcyBkb25lIGluIHRoZSBCR1AgYW5kIExEUCBWUExTIGRyYWZ0cykuDQoNCiANCg0KRnJv bSBhIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWwgcGVyc3BlY3RpdmUgdGhlIFJBRElVUyBhbmQgTDJUUCBtZWNoYW5pc21z IGFyZSBjb21wbGV0ZWx5IHNlcGFyYXRlLiBUaGUgUkFESVVTIGRpc2NvdmVyeSBtZWNoYW5pc20g aXMgYSBmdW5jdGlvbiBmb3Igd2hpY2ggdGhlIG91dHB1dCBpcyBhIGxpc3Qgb2YgSVAgYWRkcmVz c2VzIG9mIFBFcyBiZWxvbmdpbmcgdG8gdGhlIHNhbWUgVlBOLiBJZiB0aGUgb3V0cHV0IGlzIHBy b3Blcmx5IGRlZmluZWQgKHdoaWNoIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSBpdCBhbHJlYWR5IGlzKSB0aGVyZSBpcyBu byBuZWVkIHRvIGRlZmluZSBuZXcgZHJhZnRzIGZvciBlYWNoIHNpZ25hbGxpbmcgcHJvdG9jb2wg dGhhdCBtaWdodCB1c2UgUkFESVVTIGRpc2NvdmVyeS4gSWYgdGhlcmUgaXMgYSBuZWVkIGZvciB0 aGlzIGRyYWZ0IHRoZW4gd2h5IGRvbid0IHdlIGFsc28gbmVlZCAtDQoNCiANCg0KJ1RoZS1SQURJ VVMtZGlzY292ZXJ5LXdpdGgtTERQLXNpZ25hbGxpbmctVlBMUy1kcmFmdCINCg0KJ1RoZS1SQURJ VVMtZGlzY292ZXJ5LXdpdGgtQkdQLXNpZ25hbGxpbmctVlBMUy1kcmFmdCINCg0KJ1RoZS1CR1At ZGlzY292ZXJ5LXdpdGgtTERQLXNpZ25hbGxpbmctVlBMUy1kcmFmdCINCg0KJ1RoZS1CR1AtZGlz Y292ZXJ5LXdpdGgtTDJUUC1zaWduYWxsaW5nLVZQTFMtZHJhZnQiDQoNCmV0Yy4NCg0KIA0KDQpS ZWdhcmRzLA0KDQogDQoNClJpY2hhcmQNCg0KIA0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0t LSANCkZyb206IGwydnBuLWFkbWluQGlldGYub3JnIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBTYXNoYSBWYWluc2h0 ZWluIA0KU2VudDogVGh1IDIyLzAxLzIwMDQgMDY6MTkgDQpUbzogTWFyayBUb3duc2xleSAoRS1t YWlsKTsgJ3N0ZXBoQHNhbmRidXJzdC5jb20nOyAnamhAdHV0cHJvLmNvbScgDQpDYzogTDJWUE4g KEUtbWFpbCk7IEVsZW5hIFZpbmtsZXI7IFNoYXJvbiBHYWx0enVyOyBHb25lbiBaaWxiZXI7IEFs aWsgU2hpbWVsbWl0cyANClN1YmplY3Q6IENvbW1lbnRzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbDJ2cG4tbDJ0 cC1yYWRpdXMtdnBscy0wMC50eHQNCg0KDQoNCglKdWhhLCBNYXJrLCBTdGVwaGVuIGFuZCBhbGws DQoJSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gcmFpc2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgaXNzdWVzIHdpdGgNCglkcmFmdC1pZXRm LWwydnBuLWwydHAtcmFkaXVzLXZwbHMtMDAudHh0Lg0KCVRoZXNlIGlzc3VlcyBib3RoIHN0ZW0g ZnJvbSBjb21wYXJpc29uIHdpdGgNCglkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwdnBuLXZwbHMtbGRwLTAxLnR4dCBi dXQgYXJlLCBJTU8sDQoJb3J0aG9nb25hbCB0byAiTVBMUyB2cy4gSVAiIG9yICJMRFAgdnMuIEwy VFAiIHBsYW5lKHMpLg0KCQ0KCTEuIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcHB2cG4tdnBscy1sZHAtMDEudHh0IGV4 cGxpY2l0bHkgZGVmaW5lcyB0aGF0LA0KCWluIG9yZGVyIHRvIGFjaGlldmUgbG9vcC1mcmVlIG9w ZXJhdGlvbiB3aXRob3V0IHJ1bm5pbmcgU1BUDQoJYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBWUExTLCBtZXNoIG9mIFBF LXRvLVBFIEV0aGVybWV0IFBXcyAqYW5kKg0KCXNwbGl0LWhvcml6b24gZm9yd2FyZGluZyAod2hl cmUgZnJhbWVzIHJlY2VpdmVkIGZyb20gb25lDQoJb2YgdGhlIFBFLXRvLVBFIFBXcyB3aWxsIG5l dmVyIGJlIGZvcndhcmRlZCB0byBhbm90aGVyIHN1Y2ggUFcpLg0KCUkgZGlkIG5vdCBmaW5kIGFu eSByZWZlcmVuY2UgdG8gc3BsaXQtaG9yaXpvbiBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIGluDQoJZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1s MnZwbi1sMnRwLXJhZGl1cy12cGxzLTAwLnR4dC4gTXkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBpcw0KCXRoYXQg dGhpcyBpcyBzaW1wbHkgYW4gb21pc3Npb24uIElzIHRoaXMgY29ycmVjdD8gSWYgeWVzLA0KCUkg d291bGQgc3VnZ2VzdCBhdCBsZWFzdCBleHBsaWNpdGx5IHN0YXRpbmcgaXQgaW4gdGhlIGRyYWZ0 JyBvdGhlcndpc2UNCglhIGRldGFpbGVkIGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uIGlzIGNsZWFybHkgcmVxdWlyZWQu DQoJDQoJMi4gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wcHZwbi12cGxzLWxkcC0wMS50eHQgZGVmaW5lcywgaW4gYWRk aXRpb24gdG8NCgl0aGUgImZ1bGwgbWVzaCIgVlBMUywgYSBoaWVyYXJjaGljYWwgVlBMUyBmb3Jt ZWQgYnkgdHdvIHR5cGVzIG9mDQoJZGV2aWNlczoNCgktIFBFLXJzICh3aGljaCBpcyB2ZXJ5IG11 Y2ggZXF1aXZhbGVudCB0byB0aGUgImZ1bGwgbWVzaCIgUEUpDQoJLSBNVFUtcyAod2hpY2ggaXMg b25seSBjb25uZWN0ZWQgdG8gb25lIG9yLCBwb3NzaWJseSB0d28gUEUtcnMNCgkgIGluICJodWIt YW5kLXNwb2tlcyIgdG9wb2xvZ3kpLg0KCU15IGZpcnN0IGltcHJlc3Npb24gaXMgdGhhdCBzdWNo IGEgbW9kZWwgaXMgZXF1YWxseSBhcHBsaWNhYmxlDQoJdG8gUkFESVVTL0wyVFB2My1iYXNlZCBW UExTLCBidXQgdGhlIHByb2NlZHVyZXMgbmVlZCB0byBiZSBhZGFwdGVkDQoJYWNjb3JkaW5nbHku DQoJDQoJSG9wZWZ1bGx5IHRoZXNlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHdpbGwgYmUgdXNlZnVsLg0KCQ0KCVdpdGgg YmVzdCByZWdhcmRzLA0KCSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgU2FzaGEg VmFpbnNodGVpbg0KCWVtYWlsOiAgICAgc2FzaGFAYXhlcnJhLmNvbQ0KCXRlbDogICAgICAgKzk3 Mi0zLTc2NTk5OTMgKG9mZmljZSkNCgkgICAgICAgICAgICs5NzItOC05MjU0OTQ4IChyZXMuKQ0K CSAgICAgICAgICAgKzk3Mi01OC02NzQ4MzMgKGNlbGwuKQ0KCQ0KCQ0KDQo= From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Jan 23 16:04:24 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22767 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:04:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak8T6-0002iz-92 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:03:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0NL3uUm010473 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:03:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak8T6-0002iq-6A for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:03:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22758 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:03:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak8T4-0003vG-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:03:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak8SE-0003sh-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:03:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak8RH-0003or-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:02:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak8RF-0002Z5-Cu; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak8Qh-0002Yd-NK for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:01:27 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22421; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:01:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200401232101.QAA22421@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-01.txt Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:01:24 -0500 Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : Virtual Private LAN Service Author(s) : K. Kompella Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-01.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2004-1-23 Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), also known as Transparent LAN Service, and Virtual Private Switched Network service, is a useful Service Provider offering. The service offered is a Layer 2 VPN; however, in the case of VPLS, the customers in the VPN are connected by a multipoint network, in contrast to the usual Layer 2 VPNs, which are point-to-point in nature. This document describes the functions required to offer VPLS, and proposes a mechanism for signaling a VPLS, as well as for forwarding VPLS frames across a packet switched network. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-01.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-01.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-01.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-1-23162147.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-01.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-1-23162147.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Jan 29 09:45:50 2004 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19649 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:45:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmDQ2-0003yN-01 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:45:23 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0TEjLnO015269 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:45:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmDQ1-0003yC-Og for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:45:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19610 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:45:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmDPz-0004Od-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:45:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmDP6-0004J7-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:44:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmDOo-0004Dc-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:44:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmDOj-0003kq-7y; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AmDO6-0003kG-UO for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:43:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA19498 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmDO4-0004C5-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:43:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AmDN9-00045m-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:42:24 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AmDMf-0003zO-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:41:53 -0500 Received: from fruitpie.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@fruitpie.cisco.com [64.102.16.27]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i0TEfHwC000957; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from cisco.com (ams-clip-vpn-dhcp4419.cisco.com [10.61.81.66]) by fruitpie.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AWP10853; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 06:41:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <40191B8A.40700@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 15:41:14 +0100 From: "W. Mark Townsley" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: richard.spencer@bt.com CC: Sasha@AXERRA.com, steph@sandburst.com, jh@tutpro.com, l2vpn@ietf.org, elena@AXERRA.com, sharon@AXERRA.com, gonen@AXERRA.com, alik@AXERRA.com Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Richard. Please see responses inline. richard.spencer@bt.com wrote: > I am very supportive of using RADIUS for discovery and do not have any issues > with providers that want to use L2TP for VPLS, but IMO this specific draft is > not needed. > > > > It is a combination of extracts from the RADIUS discovery draft, extracts > from the L2TP drafts, and some text describing VPLS services (which is > equivalent to the text in the BGP and LDP VPLS drafts describing the same > thing). I cannot find anything new/different other than stating what the AVP > attributes must be. > I think that the RADIUS extracts of this draft should be removed and it > should be developed to create a L2TP equivalent of the BGP and LDP VPLS > drafts. This should help address Sasha's concerns below, and RADIUS discovery > could be mentioned as a possible discovery mechanism, along with BGP and DNS > (as is done in the BGP and LDP VPLS drafts). draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt already focuses on RADIUS discovery in a generic manner. If I understand you, you would like to see an L2TP draft which does what the draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt draft does for RADIUS, but also points to BGP and LDP as well. > From a functional perspective the RADIUS and L2TP mechanisms are completely > separate. Yes, I think that in draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2tp-radius-vpls-00.txt Juha was just showing how to apply the RADIUS discovery in an L2TP environment. I think that the text that applies to this is reasonable (perhaps it could be whittled down a bit as you suggest, but by some standards its a fairly terse document at barely 6 pages text minus headers). > The RADIUS discovery mechanism is a function for which the output > is a list of IP addresses of PEs belonging to the same VPN. If the output is > properly defined (which I believe it already is) there is no need to define > new drafts for each signalling protocol that might use RADIUS discovery. If > there is a need for this draft then why don't we also need - > > > > 'The-RADIUS-discovery-with-LDP-signalling-VPLS-draft" > > 'The-RADIUS-discovery-with-BGP-signalling-VPLS-draft" > > 'The-BGP-discovery-with-LDP-signalling-VPLS-draft" > > 'The-BGP-discovery-with-L2TP-signalling-VPLS-draft" > > etc. So, I think you are suggesting that we have a generic VPLS L2TP draft, and, perhaps, a RADIUS, BGP and LDP section within simply as examples of how you might use various autodiscovery mechanisms with L2TP. - Mark