From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 01 12:12:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HY2eG-0000dG-F1; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:11:20 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HY2eF-0000bQ-7u for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:11:19 -0400 Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HY2eD-0003Xu-G1 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:11:19 -0400 Received: from [172.16.15.25] (dsl081-098-224.den1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.98.224]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A880964353 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 10:11:08 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <91C31813-65A1-44FD-9379-1B05B392F5DE@castlepoint.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: l2vpn@ietf.org From: Shane Amante Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 10:11:13 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Subject: DRAFT: IETF 68 L2VPN WG Meeting Minutes X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Hi Folks, The following are DRAFT meeting minutes of IETF 68 L2VPN WG Meeting in Prague, Czech Republic: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/l2vpn.txt Thanks to Rohit Mediratta and Venu Hemige for taking minutes. Please look over the minutes and mail the chairs directly with any changes. Changes are due by April 13, 2007. Finally, some of the dialogue between Ali & Marc during Ali's presentation as well as some of the dialogue between Dave McDysan and Kireeti during Kireeti's presentation isn't complete. If you can take a look at these, in particular, and clear up statements made at the mic, it would be appreciated. -shane From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 01 12:19:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HY2lq-0003zP-Pb; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:19:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HY2lp-0003yp-D5 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:19:09 -0400 Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HY2lm-0005JL-Vz for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:19:09 -0400 Received: from [172.16.15.25] (dsl081-098-224.den1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.98.224]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6165464347 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 10:19:00 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: <84D3A5A4-B118-4D97-891C-581270CE020B@castlepoint.net> References: <84D3A5A4-B118-4D97-891C-581270CE020B@castlepoint.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <55B36E72-A8D5-465C-A374-A5796C1E9FBD@castlepoint.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Shane Amante Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 10:19:05 -0600 To: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This ends the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08. Since this document has been out there for quite some time and folks have commented on it during its lengthy development ... in the absence of any objections raised during this WG Last Call, we'll assume that silence is acceptance and forward it on to the IESG. -shane On Mar 12, 2007, at 10:35 PM, Shane Amante wrote: > This is the start of a WG Last Call for: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-08 > > Please e-mail the list with any comments, concerns or corrections. > Last Call on this draft will end in three weeks, on Friday, March > 30, 2007, at 17:00 MST (UTC -6). > > Thanks, > > -shane & Vach > From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Sun Apr 01 23:44:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYDRr-0002yy-Up; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:43:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYDRq-0002yq-Uk for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:43:14 -0400 Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYDRq-0001kt-B6 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:43:14 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO merlot.juniper.net) ([172.17.27.10]) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP/TLS/DES-CBC3-SHA; 01 Apr 2007 20:43:14 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,359,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="700792380:sNHT48960748" Received: from kummer.juniper.net (kummer.juniper.net [172.17.12.90]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id l323hBJ83635; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 20:43:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net) Received: from kummer.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id l323hBjK043834; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 20:43:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net) Received: from localhost (kireeti@localhost) by kummer.juniper.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id l323gqhT043831; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: kummer.juniper.net: kireeti owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 20:42:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Kireeti Kompella To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" In-Reply-To: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCC70@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> Message-ID: <20070401203422.I43822@kummer.juniper.net> References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCC70@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2b2ad76aced9b1d558e34a970a85c027 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Ali, On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: > Because of a few implementation of this solution, we are in favor of > progressing it as informational RFC; otherwise, we would not even > suggest the status of informational RFC for this draft. I think what > people are saying is that before we talk about standard-track RFC, we > need to really look at some of the issues that are related to this draft > such as inter-AS as well as we need to look at interoperability issue > between this solution and the current standard-track solution. Inter-AS is NOT in the L2VPN charter, so it makes no sense to use that to block the progress of this document. In point of fact, the inter-AS solution for this document is much more mature than that of alternative solutions, and perhaps more to the point, there have been inter-AS *deployments* since March 2004. > So, I > think progressing this draft as informational RFC is a good step till > these issues are addressed. > > Cheers, > Ali > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ian Stanley [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:19 PM > To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); > renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > Interesting debate and positioning, but one question of clarity > please..."how does the market indicate its need to you to start the > process for standard track" > > I would have thought that with many implementations of this > would be enough > > Cheers > Ian > > > On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" > wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) > > > > My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I hope it > didn't mean > something else :-). Yes, my preference is only for > *informational*. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg] > Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM > To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)'; > renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; > l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is > still to go > with > informational on grounds that we focus on what has > already been agreed > upon > and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near > future decide > otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) > [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno > De Troch; Shane > Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted > for LDP based > method. > We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with > LDP signaling for > PWE3. > > -Pranjal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM > To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; > l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > And the current standard-track solution is based on the > PWE3 control > protocol (RFC 4447). > > -Ali > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane > Amante'; > > l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or > > informational RFC, do we need to take into account how > many > > deployments there are? If so, I see more > implementations and > > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. > > > > On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless > it is > > intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we > intend > > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? > > > > Just some quick thoughts... > > > > Renwei > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM > > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such > > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on > the > > standard-track solution specified in the > l2vpn-signaling > > draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we > have a > > comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there > is no > > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I > > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. > > > > -Ali > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM > > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > I know multiple networks where this is already > deployed, so > > I prefer > > > it to become a standard. > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 > > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > > > I was approached by several people outside the > hallway just > > > after the > > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll > in the > > room about > > > > making this draft a WG document, in particular > over the 'Intended > > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or > Standards Track. > > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after > running over > > > our time at > > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could > convert > > the room over > > > for > > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to > clarify > > > it. So, my > > > > apologies for the confusion. > > > > > > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question > here: How > > > many people > > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a > WG > > draft *if* the > > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -shane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > Ian Stanley > National Manager > Architecture & Design > IP & Data > Core Networks | Engineering > 02 9396 8508 > 0419 257221 > > This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright > information of Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you > are not an intended recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, > save or rely on this communication, and any such action is unauthorised > and prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please > reply to this email to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, and > then delete both it and your reply. Thank you. > > > > Kireeti. ------- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 02 09:57:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYN0V-00020R-Fj; Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:55:39 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYN0T-00020H-T8 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:55:37 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYN0R-00028z-Ih for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:55:37 -0400 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2007 09:55:36 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l32DtZas017237; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:55:35 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l32DtNGd020563; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:55:29 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:55:08 -0400 Received: from [10.83.15.52] ([10.83.15.52]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:55:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCC70@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCC70@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--353592182 Message-Id: <1A424CDE-CC48-4B25-84E6-46134A45B826@cisco.com> From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 09:55:03 -0400 To: Ali Sajassi ((sajassi)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2007 13:55:07.0907 (UTC) FILETIME=[85EB1530:01C7752E] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=18435; t=1175522135; x=1176386135; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=tnadeau@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Thomas=20D.=20Nadeau=22=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 |Sender:=20 |To:=20Ali=20Sajassi=20((sajassi))=20; bh=3Ictg/7tgwgdW9c2/kquHMyE8BU+Mz0LAd9gNTfPrHc=; b=l/F6E8xOJuHVBeH2sml1tGddPhaLXOWnSfNKrBzkfn6gLt1vZZVK8F5HdYnQhhl3VJY0trav +fOlajtozbRq1fbXcgKh1zH3UNH/4MVtBeZqJ8b0s12ME9JsxfLwvsaI; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=tnadeau@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cd000eda3d43531d5b01b5d305410e3c Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, Max Ng , Shane Amante Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-1--353592182 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed I agree, and think that this is why at least 3 people (myself =20= included) have suggested that it be progressed as an individual informational, not a WG =20 informational. --Tom > Ian, > > Because of a few implementation of this solution, we are in favor =20 > of progressing it as informational RFC; otherwise, we would not =20 > even suggest the status of informational RFC for this draft. I =20 > think what people are saying is that before we talk about standard-=20 > track RFC, we need to really look at some of the issues that are =20 > related to this draft such as inter-AS as well as we need to look =20 > at interoperability issue between this solution and the current =20 > standard-track solution. So, I think progressing this draft as =20 > informational RFC is a good step till these issues are addressed. > > Cheers, > Ali > > From: Ian Stanley [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:19 PM > To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); =20 > renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > Interesting debate and positioning, but one question of clarity =20 > please...=94how does the market indicate its need to you to start the =20= > process for standard track=94 > > I would have thought that with many implementations of this would =20 > be enough > > Cheers > Ian > > > On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" lucent.com> wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) > > My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I hope it didn't mean > something else :-). Yes, my preference is only for *informational*. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg] > Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM > To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)'; > renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to go > with > informational on grounds that we focus on what has already been agreed > upon > and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near future decide > otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane > Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based > method. > We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP =20 > signaling for > PWE3. > > -Pranjal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM > To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control > protocol (RFC 4447). > > -Ali > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; > > l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or > > informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many > > deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and > > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. > > > > On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is > > intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend > > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? > > > > Just some quick thoughts... > > > > Renwei > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM > > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such > > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the > > standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling > > draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a > > comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no > > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I > > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. > > > > -Ali > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM > > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so > > I prefer > > > it to become a standard. > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 > > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just > > > after the > > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the > > room about > > > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the =20 > 'Intended > > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards =20 > Track. > > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over > > > our time at > > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert > > the room over > > > for > > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify > > > it. So, my > > > > apologies for the confusion. > > > > > > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How > > > many people > > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG > > draft *if* the > > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -shane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > Ian Stanley > National Manager > Architecture & Design > IP & Data > Core Networks | Engineering > 02 9396 8508 > 0419 257221 > > This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright =20 > information of Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If =20= > you are not an intended recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, =20 > copy, use, save or rely on this communication, and any such action =20 > is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this =20 > communication in error, please reply to this email to notify the =20 > sender of its incorrect delivery, and then delete both it and your =20 > reply. Thank you. > --Apple-Mail-1--353592182 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
I agree, = and think that this is why at least 3 people (myself included) have = suggested
that it be progressed as an individual = informational, not a WG informational.

= --Tom


=
Ian,
=
=A0
Because of a few = implementation of this solution, we are in favor of progressing it as = informational RFC; otherwise, we would not even suggest the status = of=A0informational RFC for this draft. I think what people are saying is = that before we talk about standard-track RFC, we need to really look at = some of the issues that are related to this draft such as inter-AS as = well as we need to look at interoperability issue between this solution = and the current standard-track solution. So, I think progressing this = draft as informational RFC is a good step till these issues are = addressed.
=A0
Cheers,
Ali

From: Ian Stanley [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.t= elstra.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:19 = PM
To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi = (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De = Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Interesting debate and positioning, but one = question of clarity please...=94how does the market indicate its need = to you to start the process for standard track=94

I would have = thought that with many implementations of this would be = enough

Cheers
Ian


On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, = Pranjal (Pranjal)" <pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com>= ; wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)

 =
My "support" meant supporting = Ali's comment. I hope it didn't mean
something else :-). Yes, my = preference is only for *informational*.

-----Original = Message-----
From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg]
= Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM
To: Dutta, Pranjal = (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)';
renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De = Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

A lot has been mentioned and = discussed. My preference is still to go
with
informational on = grounds that we focus on what has already been agreed
upon
and = rid the confusion. Should the market in the near future = decide
otherwise, we can progress it to Standard = track.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dutta, Pranjal = (Pranjal) [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.co= m]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM
To: Ali Sajassi = (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De = Troch; Shane
Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Completely support this. The = l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based
method.
We have wide = deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling = for
PWE3.

-Pranjal

-----Original Message-----
From: = Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
Sent: = Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM
To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De = Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02


And the current standard-track = solution is based on the PWE3 control
protocol (RFC = 4447).

-Ali

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com]
= > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM
> To: Ali Sajassi = (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';
> l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: = RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>
> When we decide = something to be a standard track RFC or
> informational RFC, = do we need to take into account how many
> deployments there = are? If so, I see more implementations and
> deployments based = on pwe3-control-protocol draft.
>
> On the other hand, a = standard should be unique unless it is
> intended to = potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend
> to = obsolete other drafts using this new one?
>
> Just some = quick thoughts...
>
> = Renwei
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original = Message-----
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
> = Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: Bruno De Troch; = Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
>
> ... And I know many more = networks that don't have such
> deployment and some of them = plan to do theirs based on the
> standard-track solution = specified in the l2vpn-signaling
> draft. So, as I have said = previously, given that we have a
> comprehensive solution = which is standard-track, there is no
> need for another one. = However, as mentioned before, I
> wouldn't mind this draft to = become informational RFC.
>
> -Ali
>
> > = -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net]
= > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM
> > To: = Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org
> > Subject: = RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> >
> > I know = multiple networks where this is already deployed, so
> I = prefer
> > it to become a standard.
> >
> = >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bruno
> = >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > = From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27
> > = > To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> = > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02
> > = >
> > > I was approached by several people outside = the hallway just
> > after the
> > > L2VPN WG = meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the
> room = about
> > > making this draft a WG document, in = particular over the 'Intended
> > > Status' of this WG = draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
> > > = Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over
> = > our time at
> > > the end of the meeting, in order = so they could convert
> the room over
> > for
> = > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to = clarify
> > it. =A0So, my
> > > apologies for = the confusion.
> > >
> > > Let me now ask a = hopefully more precise question here: How
> > many = people
> > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft = a WG
> draft *if* the
> > > 'Intended Status' is = Standards Track?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> = > >
> > > -shane
> = >
>
>








Regards,
Ian Stanley
National = Manager
Architecture & Design
IP & Data
Core Networks | = Engineering
02 9396 8508
0419 257221

This communication = may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of Telstra = Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an intended = recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or rely on this = communication, and any such action is unauthorised and prohibited. If = you have received this communication in error, please reply to this = email to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, and then delete = both it and your reply. Thank you.
=A0

= --Apple-Mail-1--353592182-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Mon Apr 02 13:50:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYQel-0001OI-FS; Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:49:27 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYQek-0001OB-Pt for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:49:26 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYQej-0000XL-7g for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:49:26 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2007 10:49:24 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l32HnOrJ024839; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:49:24 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l32HnAEw004237; Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:49:24 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:49:18 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:49:17 -0700 Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCF85@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20070401203422.I43822@kummer.juniper.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: Acd02Q2CmsQIVnVQQayhDpYmKxduVAAdHrdQ From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" To: "Kireeti Kompella" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2007 17:49:18.0234 (UTC) FILETIME=[3C90D7A0:01C7754F] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=8945; t=1175536164; x=1176400164; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 |Sender:=20; bh=qFEc0VeF034bI/5FcM6bp+OwDblo68EPbntZ6B8+KNw=; b=Jv0YVBcgps9gPFdkMLuBOIWM0xoGOQLq/K5XyaOEA/fTbqyKknbb6nqWH+WZet0rMENuwIZj x5ivyNwWfycQfA3P4f0SNQb7A/ffLvyP5wmdpTGZlaJXAyBSIl390TXH; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=sajassi@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fe105289edd72640d9f392da880eefa2 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Kireeti, Nice try :-) Although the charter doesn't include inter-AS and needs to be updated (as per charter text itself), the assumption all along has been that all L2VPN solutions will cover inter-AS. As the matter of fact, the L2VPN-requirement RFC (RFC 4665) has a clear set of requirements for inter-AS. Furthermore, the L2VPN-framework RFC (RFC 4664) also covers inter-AS. And last but not least, all the current standard-track VPLS and VPWS solutions do cover inter-AS scenarios. So, I would say we should spend our efforts in fixing the problem rather than bypassing it. Cheers, Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]=20 > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 8:43 PM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > Cc: Ian Stanley; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >=20 > Ali, >=20 > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: >=20 > > Because of a few implementation of this solution, we are in=20 > favor of=20 > > progressing it as informational RFC; otherwise, we would not even=20 > > suggest the status of informational RFC for this draft. I=20 > think what=20 > > people are saying is that before we talk about=20 > standard-track RFC, we=20 > > need to really look at some of the issues that are related to this=20 > > draft such as inter-AS as well as we need to look at=20 > interoperability=20 > > issue between this solution and the current standard-track solution. >=20 > Inter-AS is NOT in the L2VPN charter, so it makes no sense to=20 > use that to block the progress of this document. In point of=20 > fact, the inter-AS solution for this document is much more=20 > mature than that of alternative solutions, and perhaps more=20 > to the point, there have been inter-AS *deployments* since March 2004. >=20 > > So, I > > think progressing this draft as informational RFC is a good=20 > step till=20 > > these issues are addressed. > > > > Cheers, > > Ali > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Ian Stanley [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:19 PM > > To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi (sajassi);=20 > > renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > Interesting debate and positioning, but one question of clarity=20 > > please..."how does the market indicate its need to you to start the=20 > > process for standard track" > > > > I would have thought that with many implementations of=20 > this would be=20 > > enough > > > > Cheers > > Ian > > > > > > On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" > > wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) > > > > > > > > My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I=20 > hope it didn't mean > > something else :-). Yes, my preference is only=20 > for *informational*. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg] > > Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM > > To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)'; > > renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante';=20 > > l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My=20 > preference is still to go > > with > > informational on grounds that we focus on what=20 > has already been=20 > > agreed > > upon > > and rid the confusion. Should the market in the=20 > near future decide > > otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) > > [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi);=20 > renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch;=20 > > Shane > > Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already=20 > adopted for LDP based > > method. > > We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and=20 > MS-PW with LDP signaling=20 > > for > > PWE3. > > > > -Pranjal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM > > To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante;=20 > > l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > And the current standard-track solution is based on the > > PWE3 control > > protocol (RFC 4447). > > > > -Ali > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM > > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch';=20 > 'Shane Amante'; > > > l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or > > > informational RFC, do we need to take into=20 > account how many > > > deployments there are? If so, I see more=20 > implementations and > > > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. > > > > > > On the other hand, a standard should be=20 > unique unless it is > > > intended to potentially obsolete the other=20 > ones. Do we intend > > > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? > > > > > > Just some quick thoughts... > > > > > > Renwei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM > > > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such > > > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs=20 > based on the > > > standard-track solution specified in the=20 > l2vpn-signaling > > > draft. So, as I have said previously, given=20 > that we have a > > > comprehensive solution which is=20 > standard-track, there is no > > > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I > > > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. > > > > > > -Ali > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM > > > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > > > I know multiple networks where this is=20 > already deployed, so > > > I prefer > > > > it to become a standard. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 > > > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > > > > > I was approached by several people=20 > outside the hallway just > > > > after the > > > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion=20 > over a poll in the > > > room about > > > > > making this draft a WG document, in=20 > particular over the=20 > > 'Intended > > > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.:=20 > Informational or Standards=20 > > Track. > > > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off=20 > after running over > > > > our time at > > > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they=20 > could convert > > > the room over > > > > for > > > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't=20 > have time to clarify > > > > it. So, my > > > > > apologies for the confusion. > > > > > > > > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question > > here: How > > > > many people > > > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned=20 > draft a WG > > > draft *if* the > > > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > -shane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Ian Stanley > > National Manager > > Architecture & Design > > IP & Data > > Core Networks | Engineering > > 02 9396 8508 > > 0419 257221 > > > > This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or=20 > copyright information=20 > > of Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you=20 > are not an=20 > > intended recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or=20 > > rely on this communication, and any such action is unauthorised and=20 > > prohibited. If you have received this communication in=20 > error, please=20 > > reply to this email to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery,=20 > > and then delete both it and your reply. Thank you. > > > > > > > > >=20 > Kireeti. > ------- >=20 From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 03 11:43:54 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYl9T-0008O8-HP; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:42:31 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYl9R-0008Mz-KX for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:42:29 -0400 Received: from mail146.messagelabs.com ([216.82.245.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYl9O-00057T-6N for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:42:29 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: dbrungard@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1175614945!12709880!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4] Received: (qmail 25207 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2007 15:42:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO attrh9i.attrh.att.com) (134.24.146.4) by server-13.tower-146.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2007 15:42:25 -0000 Received: from attrh.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by attrh9i.attrh.att.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l33FgOsq005063; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com (ocst07.ugd.att.com [135.38.164.12]) by attrh9i.attrh.att.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l33FgAkg004865; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:42:16 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:42:05 -0500 Message-ID: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0DE9766B@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> In-Reply-To: <460BF647.1010701@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS Thread-Index: AcdyJ5Nlj+/wwne+SwWGb0T4g2rEVwD2kiZA From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" To: , X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6a45e05c1e4343200aa6b327df2c43fc Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org I understand the concern with introducing a 2nd standards' approach for VPWS signaling. What's missing in the discussion is the flip side - the operator's concern which was the rationale for 4761 being a standard. An operator already supporting L3VPNs and VPLS using BGP signaling, will need to use a different protocol for VPWS? For an operator, the cost savings will be if they can use the same operations. To an operator, it's L2VPN. Operators not using BGP have different needs (and equipment). The need for a standard on this is no different than the rationale for having standards. Vendors against this as a standard will not be preventing it's use. And if they are supporting equipment in this market, it would seem in their interest to want a standard. On inter-domain, BGP is already a proven, scalable, easily applied (for operators with BGP), working technology. When interdomain L2VPNs are included in the charter, it would seem to be an obvious consideration. Deborah -----Original Message----- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:24 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS It is always the strong preference of the IETF that we should only have=20 ONE standards track method. There is precedence for this in PWE3 with SATOP which was universally=20 agreed as a TDM method and hence was standards track. With CESoPSN and=20 TDMoIP - on which there was no universal agreement both were published=20 as informational. The position here is that *if* the market eventually=20 decides on one of the two approaches that will be advanced to=20 standards track - meanwhile we are waiting for the market. Similarly with the LDP vs RSVP PW signaling issue, it was agreed that=20 unless there was a compelling reason to adopt a new signaling protocol=20 we would remain with LDP for multi-segment PW signaling. We already have an agreed method of L2VPN signaling and an agreed method of L2VPN discovery. There is no need for an additional standards track=20 approach, and to introduce one would not only be confusing, but will=20 increase costs as equipment ends up implementing both methods and may=20 well introduce interworking issues. We should take the normal approach here. If we think the concept merits=20 an RFC, we should publish it as an informational. If at a later date the market decides that this is a preferred approach, then and only then=20 should we consider standards track status for this approach. - Stewart Kireeti Kompella wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Sasha Vainshtein wrote: > >> Ali and all, >> Sorry, missed that fact completely. > > Sasha, you were doing great, and thanks for that! Now, don't give up=20 > so easily! :-) > > This is the only solution that addresses both the auto-discovery and=20 > signaling aspects of an L2 *VPN*. The PWE solution only addresses=20 > signaling of a *PW*. An L2VPN consists of a number of related PWs=20 > (such as all those requested by an enterprise). > > I know full well that many would be happy to see this draft die, or be > relegated to "informational", for whatever reasons. However, there=20 > are two important points that are being missed: > > a) this draft proposes very minor changes to an existing PS document > (RFC 4761) > b) the arguments that led to the standardization of both RFC 4761 and > RFC 4762 hold equally here. > >> In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed >> progressed as an Informational RFC. >> >> Regards, >> Sasha >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM >> To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini) >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson >> Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !! >> >> >> I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a >> standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS >> signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt >> >> (sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most the l2vpn >> draft using BGP signaling (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should be >> just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward given that it >> suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the >> standard-track solution does NOT suffer. >> >> -Ali >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM >> To: Luca Martini (lmartini) >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson >> Subject: RE: Raising of hands ... >> >> >> Luca and all, >> I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable. >> >> In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially >> the same problem. >> Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to >> publish both as Informational RFCs. >> >> IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have >> several options: >> >> * Publish one as a Standards Track document and the other >> one as Informational >> * Publish both as Standards Track documents if the >> differences in the applicability justify that (this is how this WG has >> published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS) >> * Publish both as Informational if the differences in the >> applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached >> * Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not >> really require alternative proposals:-) >> >> BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far. >> >> Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is >> not enough IMHO. >> You would need something close to the control plane sections of >> RFC 4762, only more complicated. >> >> Regards, >> Sasha >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM >> To: Loa Andersson >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Raising of hands ... >> >> >> Loa Andersson wrote: >> >> Loa Andersson wrote: >> >> >> Yakov, >> >> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies >> protocol and uses >> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc >> ...) (though Kireeti >> as usual is to lazy to capitalize. >> >> So, short of major rewriting this can be >> "informational". >> >> >> So, short of major rewriting this can't be >> "informational". >> >> >> >> Loa, >> We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs >> yet they have the same characteristics as this document. >> So I do not agree that just because of the language of the >> document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard >> recommendation of the IETF. >> I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single >> common method. However it is also common practice to permit additional >> informational RFCs when needed. >> I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for >> autodiscovery. >> >> Luca >> >> >> h >> >> >> sorry about that >> >> /Loa >> >> >> >> /Loa >> >> Yaakov Stein wrote: >> >> >> >> I just wanted to clarify that I raised >> my hand for making >> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG >> document, >> but prefer it to be informational, not >> standards-track. >> >> Y(J)S >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Kireeti. > ------- > From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 03 15:55:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYp4D-0007Vc-O6; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:53:21 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYp4C-0007VP-6j for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:53:20 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYp4A-0004SP-AO for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:53:20 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2007 12:53:17 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l33JrHsO013776; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:53:17 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l33JrHZT023275; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:53:17 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:53:17 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:53:16 -0700 Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFD4F6@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0DE9766B@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS Thread-Index: AcdyJ5Nlj+/wwne+SwWGb0T4g2rEVwD2kiZAAAiA4tA= From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2007 19:53:17.0376 (UTC) FILETIME=[B90D9400:01C77629] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=10592; t=1175629997; x=1176493997; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02=20to=20PS |Sender:=20; bh=hegzJOleHHR3kEG2Gwkya8au5XzT112RjXEKpFMKRM8=; b=JRdWFz5TlrlXlCZME4RsemJLUiAvgeTKsSqAEAuuon8GQNfmNVw9mWTetjPnYnJWq3orSvvC VQhgEFhDEABKN8tfxs2SiJbcw/HcV4gg7RODnGH6fiYPIhFbsGL03dW1Ivgkx/ygI3qIVoMXgD cr6bAGDr04/Fv42h7d527enns=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=sajassi@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c0aa019322dfce838bd8604f5a841b57 Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org =20 Hi Deborah, I agree with you that from operational point of view, an operator who is used to L3VPN operation would like to leverage its L3VPN mechanism for its VPLS and VPWS services. However, the question is that where does the bulk of this leverage comes from: BGP auto-discovery versus BGP signaling. And if we look into the details, all the advantages that one would get from L3VPN operation (both intra as well as inter AS scenarios) come from BGP auto-discovery where one can use similar constructs of L3VPN such as using RT to define a topology and RD for unique identification in VPLS and VPWS as well as well as leveraging all the scalability and advantages of BGP. On the other hand, the BGP signaling of L3VPN and VPLS/VPWS are quite different because in case of VPLS/VPWS, there must be a point-to-point association between the two PEs whereas, there is no such requirement what so ever in L3VPN and thus resulting in big divergence from L3VPN operation model. As the matter of fact not only this is causing a divergence but also introducing significant restriction for inter-AS operation where now different Autonomous Systems must coordinate their CE-id assignment among themselves. This restriction never existed in L3VPN autonomous systems where they operated independently from one another - as the name "Autonomous System" implies.=20 Last but not least, one must also consider the interoperability between BGP and LDP signaling for VPWS and how it works which I am sure it easier said than done.=20 Regards, Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:42 AM > To: Stewart Bryant (stbryant); l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS >=20 > I understand the concern with introducing a 2nd standards'=20 > approach for VPWS signaling. What's missing in the discussion=20 > is the flip side - the operator's concern which was the=20 > rationale for 4761 being a standard. An operator already=20 > supporting L3VPNs and VPLS using BGP signaling, will need to=20 > use a different protocol for VPWS? For an operator, the cost=20 > savings will be if they can use the same operations. To an=20 > operator, it's L2VPN. Operators not using BGP have different=20 > needs (and equipment). The need for a standard on this is no=20 > different than the rationale for having standards. Vendors=20 > against this as a standard will not be preventing it's use.=20 > And if they are supporting equipment in this market, it would=20 > seem in their interest to want a standard. >=20 > On inter-domain, BGP is already a proven, scalable, easily=20 > applied (for operators with BGP), working technology. When=20 > interdomain L2VPNs are included in the charter, it would seem=20 > to be an obvious consideration. >=20 > Deborah >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:24 PM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS >=20 > It is always the strong preference of the IETF that we should=20 > only have ONE standards track method. >=20 > There is precedence for this in PWE3 with SATOP which was=20 > universally agreed as a TDM method and hence was standards=20 > track. With CESoPSN and TDMoIP - on which there was no=20 > universal agreement both were published as informational. The=20 > position here is that *if* the market eventually decides on=20 > one of the two approaches that will be advanced to standards=20 > track - meanwhile we are waiting for the market. >=20 > Similarly with the LDP vs RSVP PW signaling issue, it was=20 > agreed that unless there was a compelling reason to adopt a=20 > new signaling protocol we would remain with LDP for=20 > multi-segment PW signaling. >=20 > We already have an agreed method of L2VPN signaling and an=20 > agreed method >=20 > of L2VPN discovery. There is no need for an additional=20 > standards track approach, and to introduce one would not only=20 > be confusing, but will increase costs as equipment ends up=20 > implementing both methods and may well introduce interworking issues. >=20 > We should take the normal approach here. If we think the=20 > concept merits an RFC, we should publish it as an=20 > informational. If at a later date the >=20 > market decides that this is a preferred approach, then and=20 > only then should we consider standards track status for this approach. >=20 > - Stewart >=20 >=20 > Kireeti Kompella wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Sasha Vainshtein wrote: > > > >> Ali and all, > >> Sorry, missed that fact completely. > > > > Sasha, you were doing great, and thanks for that! Now,=20 > don't give up=20 > > so easily! :-) > > > > This is the only solution that addresses both the=20 > auto-discovery and=20 > > signaling aspects of an L2 *VPN*. The PWE solution only addresses=20 > > signaling of a *PW*. An L2VPN consists of a number of related PWs=20 > > (such as all those requested by an enterprise). > > > > I know full well that many would be happy to see this draft=20 > die, or be >=20 > > relegated to "informational", for whatever reasons. However, there=20 > > are two important points that are being missed: > > > > a) this draft proposes very minor changes to an existing PS document > > (RFC 4761) > > b) the arguments that led to the standardization of both=20 > RFC 4761 and > > RFC 4762 hold equally here. > > > >> In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed=20 > >> progressed as an Informational RFC. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Sasha > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM > >> To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini) > >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson > >> Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !! > >> > >> > >> I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a=20 > >> standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS=20 > >> signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of=20 > >>=20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt > >> > g-08.txt> > >> (sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most=20 > the l2vpn=20 > >> draft using BGP signaling=20 > (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should > be > >> just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward=20 > given that it=20 > >> suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the=20 > >> standard-track solution does NOT suffer. > >> > >> -Ali > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM > >> To: Luca Martini (lmartini) > >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson > >> Subject: RE: Raising of hands ... > >> > >> > >> Luca and all, > >> I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable. > >> > >> In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving=20 > essentially=20 > >> the same problem. > >> Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to=20 > >> publish both as Informational RFCs. > >> > >> IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have=20 > >> several options: > >> > >> * Publish one as a Standards Track document and the other > >> one as Informational > >> * Publish both as Standards Track documents if the > >> differences in the applicability justify that (this is how this WG > has > >> published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS) > >> * Publish both as Informational if the differences in the > >> applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached > >> * Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not > >> really require alternative proposals:-) > >> > >> BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far. > >> > >> Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is=20 > >> not enough IMHO. > >> You would need something close to the control plane=20 > sections of=20 > >> RFC 4762, only more complicated. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Sasha > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM > >> To: Loa Andersson > >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: Raising of hands ... > >> > >> > >> Loa Andersson wrote: > >> > >> Loa Andersson wrote: > >> > >> > >> Yakov, > >> > >> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies=20 > protocol=20 > >> and uses > >> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc > >> ...) (though Kireeti > >> as usual is to lazy to capitalize. > >> > >> So, short of major rewriting this can be=20 > "informational". > >> > >> > >> So, short of major rewriting this can't be > >> "informational". > >> > >> > >> > >> Loa, > >> We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs > >> yet they have the same characteristics as this document. > >> So I do not agree that just because of the language of the > >> document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard > >> recommendation of the IETF. > >> I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single > >> common method. However it is also common practice to permit > additional > >> informational RFCs when needed. > >> I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for > >> autodiscovery. > >> > >> Luca > >> > >> > >> h > >> > >> > >> sorry about that > >> > >> /Loa > >> > >> > >> > >> /Loa > >> > >> Yaakov Stein wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I just wanted to clarify that I raised > >> my hand for making > >> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG > >> document, > >> but prefer it to be informational, not > >> standards-track. > >> > >> Y(J)S > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > Kireeti. > > ------- > > >=20 From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 04 00:05:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYwjL-0003jI-GB; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:04:19 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYwjK-0003jD-6M for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:04:18 -0400 Received: from smtp1.twtelecom.com ([168.215.22.108]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HYwjH-00007J-4M for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:04:18 -0400 Received: from SRVMSXMB3.ad.twtelecom.com ([10.1.34.22]) by srvmsxsmtp2.ad.twtelecom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:04:07 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:04:07 -0600 Message-ID: <55C073AEE656224EBF05532B00818723013DD882@SRVMSXMB3.ad.twtelecom.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 Thread-Index: Acd2CVw3D5Ci9g+FQuGk55uImL+qiAAO3W+g References: From: "Yu, Henry" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2007 04:04:07.0732 (UTC) FILETIME=[4AD54740:01C7766E] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: aec2475b197ed9c8908117d8fbf9ee2e Cc: jamesw@juniper.net, darrow@juniper.net Subject: RE: L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org As a network operator that has been using VPLS for a number of years, I'm= very much a proponent of moving the draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn along as a= WG document within the Standards track. Interprovider VPNs have been= addressed within rfc4364 and draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn addresses these= same options in a similar manner. Deborah made a very valid point when= she stated "For an operator, the cost savings will be if they can use the= same operations", which completely applies to why I would like to see= draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn stay within the Standards track. Cheers, Henry Sr. Manager, IP Architecture and Security Time Warner Telecom -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-request@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:00 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 Send L2vpn mailing list submissions to l2vpn@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to l2vpn-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at l2vpn-owner@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than= "Re: Contents of L2vpn digest..." Today's Topics: 1. RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 (Ali Sajassi (sajassi)) 2. RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS (BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:49:17 -0700 From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 To: "Kireeti Kompella" Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Message-ID: = <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCF85@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Kireeti, Nice try :-) Although the charter doesn't include inter-AS and needs to be= updated (as per charter text itself), the assumption all along has been= that all L2VPN solutions will cover inter-AS. As the matter of fact, the= L2VPN-requirement RFC (RFC 4665) has a clear set of requirements for= inter-AS. Furthermore, the L2VPN-framework RFC (RFC 4664) also covers inter-AS. And last but not least, all the current= standard-track VPLS and VPWS solutions do cover inter-AS scenarios. So, I= would say we should spend our efforts in fixing the problem rather than= bypassing it. Cheers, Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 8:43 PM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > Cc: Ian Stanley; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > Ali, > > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: > > > Because of a few implementation of this solution, we are in > favor of > > progressing it as informational RFC; otherwise, we would not even > > suggest the status of informational RFC for this draft. I > think what > > people are saying is that before we talk about > standard-track RFC, we > > need to really look at some of the issues that are related to this > > draft such as inter-AS as well as we need to look at > interoperability > > issue between this solution and the current standard-track solution. > > Inter-AS is NOT in the L2VPN charter, so it makes no sense to use that > to block the progress of this document. In point of fact, the > inter-AS solution for this document is much more mature than that of > alternative solutions, and perhaps more to the point, there have been > inter-AS *deployments* since March 2004. > > > So, I > > think progressing this draft as informational RFC is a good > step till > > these issues are addressed. > > > > Cheers, > > Ali > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Ian Stanley [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:19 PM > > To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); > > renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > Interesting debate and positioning, but one question of clarity > > please..."how does the market indicate its need to you to start the > > process for standard track" > > > > I would have thought that with many implementations of > this would be > > enough > > > > Cheers > > Ian > > > > > > On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" > > wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) > > > > > > > > My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I > hope it didn't mean > > something else :-). Yes, my preference is only > for *informational*. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg] > > Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM > > To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)'; > > renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; > > l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My > preference is still to go > > with > > informational on grounds that we focus on what > has already been > > agreed > > upon > > and rid the confusion. Should the market in the > near future decide > > otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) > > [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); > renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; > > Shane > > Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already > adopted for LDP based > > method. > > We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and > MS-PW with LDP signaling > > for > > PWE3. > > > > -Pranjal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM > > To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; > > l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > And the current standard-track solution is based on the > > PWE3 control > > protocol (RFC 4447). > > > > -Ali > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM > > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; > 'Shane Amante'; > > > l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or > > > informational RFC, do we need to take into > account how many > > > deployments there are? If so, I see more > implementations and > > > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. > > > > > > On the other hand, a standard should be > unique unless it is > > > intended to potentially obsolete the other > ones. Do we intend > > > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? > > > > > > Just some quick thoughts... > > > > > > Renwei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM > > > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such > > > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs > based on the > > > standard-track solution specified in the > l2vpn-signaling > > > draft. So, as I have said previously, given > that we have a > > > comprehensive solution which is > standard-track, there is no > > > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I > > > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. > > > > > > -Ali > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM > > > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > > > I know multiple networks where this is > already deployed, so > > > I prefer > > > > it to become a standard. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 > > > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > > > > > I was approached by several people > outside the hallway just > > > > after the > > > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion > over a poll in the > > > room about > > > > > making this draft a WG document, in > particular over the > > 'Intended > > > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: > Informational or Standards > > Track. > > > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off > after running over > > > > our time at > > > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they > could convert > > > the room over > > > > for > > > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't > have time to clarify > > > > it. So, my > > > > > apologies for the confusion. > > > > > > > > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question > > here: How > > > > many people > > > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned > draft a WG > > > draft *if* the > > > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > -shane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Ian Stanley > > National Manager > > Architecture & Design > > IP & Data > > Core Networks | Engineering > > 02 9396 8508 > > 0419 257221 > > > > This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or > copyright information > > of Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you > are not an > > intended recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or > > rely on this communication, and any such action is unauthorised and > > prohibited. If you have received this communication in > error, please > > reply to this email to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, > > and then delete both it and your reply. Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > Kireeti. > ------- > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:42:05 -0500 From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS To: , Message-ID: = <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0DE9766B@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" I understand the concern with introducing a 2nd standards' approach for= VPWS signaling. What's missing in the discussion is the flip side - the= operator's concern which was the rationale for 4761 being a standard. An= operator already supporting L3VPNs and VPLS using BGP signaling, will need= to use a different protocol for VPWS? For an operator, the cost savings= will be if they can use the same operations. To an operator, it's L2VPN.= Operators not using BGP have different needs (and equipment). The need for= a standard on this is no different than the rationale for having= standards. Vendors against this as a standard will not be preventing it's= use. And if they are supporting equipment in this market, it would seem in= their interest to want a standard. On inter-domain, BGP is already a proven, scalable, easily applied (for= operators with BGP), working technology. When interdomain L2VPNs are= included in the charter, it would seem to be an obvious consideration. Deborah -----Original Message----- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:24 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS It is always the strong preference of the IETF that we should only have ONE= standards track method. There is precedence for this in PWE3 with SATOP which was universally= agreed as a TDM method and hence was standards track. With CESoPSN and= TDMoIP - on which there was no universal agreement both were published as= informational. The position here is that *if* the market eventually= decides on one of the two approaches that will be advanced to standards= track - meanwhile we are waiting for the market. Similarly with the LDP vs RSVP PW signaling issue, it was agreed that= unless there was a compelling reason to adopt a new signaling protocol we= would remain with LDP for multi-segment PW signaling. We already have an agreed method of L2VPN signaling and an agreed method of L2VPN discovery. There is no need for an additional standards track= approach, and to introduce one would not only be confusing, but will= increase costs as equipment ends up implementing both methods and may well= introduce interworking issues. We should take the normal approach here. If we think the concept merits an= RFC, we should publish it as an informational. If at a later date the market decides that this is a preferred approach, then and only then should= we consider standards track status for this approach. - Stewart Kireeti Kompella wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Sasha Vainshtein wrote: > >> Ali and all, >> Sorry, missed that fact completely. > > Sasha, you were doing great, and thanks for that! Now, don't give up > so easily! :-) > > This is the only solution that addresses both the auto-discovery and > signaling aspects of an L2 *VPN*. The PWE solution only addresses > signaling of a *PW*. An L2VPN consists of a number of related PWs > (such as all those requested by an enterprise). > > I know full well that many would be happy to see this draft die, or be > relegated to "informational", for whatever reasons. However, there > are two important points that are being missed: > > a) this draft proposes very minor changes to an existing PS document > (RFC 4761) > b) the arguments that led to the standardization of both RFC 4761 and > RFC 4762 hold equally here. > >> In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed >> progressed as an Informational RFC. >> >> Regards, >> Sasha >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM >> To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini) >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson >> Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !! >> >> >> I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a >> standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS >> signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt >> >> (sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most the l2vpn >> draft using BGP signaling (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should be >> just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward given that it >> suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the >> standard-track solution does NOT suffer. >> >> -Ali >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM >> To: Luca Martini (lmartini) >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson >> Subject: RE: Raising of hands ... >> >> >> Luca and all, >> I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable. >> >> In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially >> the same problem. >> Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to >> publish both as Informational RFCs. >> >> IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have >> several options: >> >> * Publish one as a Standards Track document and the other >> one as Informational >> * Publish both as Standards Track documents if the >> differences in the applicability justify that (this is how this WG has >> published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS) >> * Publish both as Informational if the differences in the >> applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached >> * Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not >> really require alternative proposals:-) >> >> BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far. >> >> Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is >> not enough IMHO. >> You would need something close to the control plane sections of >> RFC 4762, only more complicated. >> >> Regards, >> Sasha >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM >> To: Loa Andersson >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Raising of hands ... >> >> >> Loa Andersson wrote: >> >> Loa Andersson wrote: >> >> >> Yakov, >> >> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol >> and uses >> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc >> ...) (though Kireeti >> as usual is to lazy to capitalize. >> >> So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational". >> >> >> So, short of major rewriting this can't be >> "informational". >> >> >> >> Loa, >> We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs >> yet they have the same characteristics as this document. >> So I do not agree that just because of the language of the >> document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard >> recommendation of the IETF. >> I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single >> common method. However it is also common practice to permit additional >> informational RFCs when needed. >> I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for >> autodiscovery. >> >> Luca >> >> >> h >> >> >> sorry about that >> >> /Loa >> >> >> >> /Loa >> >> Yaakov Stein wrote: >> >> >> >> I just wanted to clarify that I raised >> my hand for making >> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG >> document, >> but prefer it to be informational, not >> standards-track. >> >> Y(J)S >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Kireeti. > ------- > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ L2vpn mailing list L2vpn@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn End of L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 ************************************ The content contained in this electronic message is not intended to constitute formation of a contract binding TWTC. TWTC will be contractually bound only upon execution, by an authorized officer, of a contract including agreed terms and conditions or by express application of its tariffs. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail or by telephone. From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 04 10:58:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ6uk-0007rz-8J; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:56:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ6ui-0007qU-P9 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:56:44 -0400 Received: from black.monoski.com ([63.227.123.238] helo=napoleon.monoski.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ6qb-0000XN-IG for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:52:32 -0400 Received: from [209.245.27.1] (napoleon.monoski.com [209.245.27.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by napoleon.monoski.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l34EpVRB017027 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:52:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4613BB73.40103@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:51:31 -0600 From: Luca Martini User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061110) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Yu, Henry" References: <55C073AEE656224EBF05532B00818723013DD882@SRVMSXMB3.ad.twtelecom.com> In-Reply-To: <55C073AEE656224EBF05532B00818723013DD882@SRVMSXMB3.ad.twtelecom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0a1 (napoleon.monoski.com [209.245.27.1]); Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:52:13 -0600 (MDT) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 209.245.27.1 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 85fe3afc5d9560be77aa81420052017a Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, jamesw@juniper.net, darrow@juniper.net Subject: Re: L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Yu, Henry wrote: > As a network operator that has been using VPLS for a number of years, I'm very much a proponent of moving the draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn along as a WG document within the Standards track. Interprovider VPNs have been addressed within rfc4364 and draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn addresses these same options in a similar manner. Deborah made a very valid point when she stated "For an operator, the cost savings will be if they can use the same operations", which completely applies to why I would like to see draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn stay within the Standards track. > > Yu, To the point you make above , since we already have standard track solutions that are widely deployed, how would it help to make yet another solution that is not as widely deployed standard track ? If anything it would make the inter-operations much more difficult as different operators would choose different non inter-operable standards. Luca > Cheers, > > Henry > > Sr. Manager, IP Architecture and Security > > Time Warner Telecom > > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-request@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:00 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 > > Send L2vpn mailing list submissions to > l2vpn@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > l2vpn-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > l2vpn-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of L2vpn digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 (Ali Sajassi (sajassi)) > 2. RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS > (BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:49:17 -0700 > From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > To: "Kireeti Kompella" > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Message-ID: > <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCF85@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > Kireeti, > > Nice try :-) Although the charter doesn't include inter-AS and needs to be updated (as per charter text itself), the assumption all along has been that all L2VPN solutions will cover inter-AS. As the matter of fact, the L2VPN-requirement RFC (RFC 4665) has a clear set of requirements for inter-AS. Furthermore, the L2VPN-framework RFC (RFC > 4664) also covers inter-AS. And last but not least, all the current standard-track VPLS and VPWS solutions do cover inter-AS scenarios. So, I would say we should spend our efforts in fixing the problem rather than bypassing it. > > Cheers, > Ali > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] >> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 8:43 PM >> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >> Cc: Ian Stanley; l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >> >> Ali, >> >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: >> >> >>> Because of a few implementation of this solution, we are in >>> >> favor of >> >>> progressing it as informational RFC; otherwise, we would not even >>> suggest the status of informational RFC for this draft. I >>> >> think what >> >>> people are saying is that before we talk about >>> >> standard-track RFC, we >> >>> need to really look at some of the issues that are related to this >>> draft such as inter-AS as well as we need to look at >>> >> interoperability >> >>> issue between this solution and the current standard-track solution. >>> >> Inter-AS is NOT in the L2VPN charter, so it makes no sense to use that >> to block the progress of this document. In point of fact, the >> inter-AS solution for this document is much more mature than that of >> alternative solutions, and perhaps more to the point, there have been >> inter-AS *deployments* since March 2004. >> >> >>> So, I >>> think progressing this draft as informational RFC is a good >>> >> step till >> >>> these issues are addressed. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Ali >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Ian Stanley [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com] >>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:19 PM >>> To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); >>> renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>> >>> >>> Interesting debate and positioning, but one question of clarity >>> please..."how does the market indicate its need to you to start the >>> process for standard track" >>> >>> I would have thought that with many implementations of >>> >> this would be >> >>> enough >>> >>> Cheers >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" >>> wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) >>> >>> >>> >>> My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I >>> >> hope it didn't mean >> >>> something else :-). Yes, my preference is only >>> >> for *informational*. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg] >>> Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM >>> To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)'; >>> renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; >>> l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>> >>> A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My >>> >> preference is still to go >> >>> with >>> informational on grounds that we focus on what >>> >> has already been >> >>> agreed >>> upon >>> and rid the confusion. Should the market in the >>> >> near future decide >> >>> otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) >>> [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] >>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM >>> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); >>> >> renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; >> >>> Shane >>> Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>> >>> Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already >>> >> adopted for LDP based >> >>> method. >>> We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and >>> >> MS-PW with LDP signaling >> >>> for >>> PWE3. >>> >>> -Pranjal >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM >>> To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; >>> l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>> >>> >>> And the current standard-track solution is based on the >>> PWE3 control >>> protocol (RFC 4447). >>> >>> -Ali >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] >>> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM >>> > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; >>> >> 'Shane Amante'; >> >>> > l2vpn@ietf.org >>> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>> > >>> > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or >>> > informational RFC, do we need to take into >>> >> account how many >> >>> > deployments there are? If so, I see more >>> >> implementations and >> >>> > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. >>> > >>> > On the other hand, a standard should be >>> >> unique unless it is >> >>> > intended to potentially obsolete the other >>> >> ones. Do we intend >> >>> > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? >>> > >>> > Just some quick thoughts... >>> > >>> > Renwei >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >>> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM >>> > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org >>> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>> > >>> > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such >>> > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs >>> >> based on the >> >>> > standard-track solution specified in the >>> >> l2vpn-signaling >> >>> > draft. So, as I have said previously, given >>> >> that we have a >> >>> > comprehensive solution which is >>> >> standard-track, there is no >> >>> > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I >>> > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. >>> > >>> > -Ali >>> > >>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] >>> > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM >>> > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org >>> > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>> > > >>> > > I know multiple networks where this is >>> >> already deployed, so >> >>> > I prefer >>> > > it to become a standard. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Cheers, >>> > > >>> > > Bruno >>> > > >>> > > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] >>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 >>> > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org >>> > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>> > > > >>> > > > I was approached by several people >>> >> outside the hallway just >> >>> > > after the >>> > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion >>> >> over a poll in the >> >>> > room about >>> > > > making this draft a WG document, in >>> >> particular over the >> >>> 'Intended >>> > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: >>> >> Informational or Standards >> >>> Track. >>> > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off >>> >> after running over >> >>> > > our time at >>> > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they >>> >> could convert >> >>> > the room over >>> > > for >>> > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't >>> >> have time to clarify >> >>> > > it. So, my >>> > > > apologies for the confusion. >>> > > > >>> > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question >>> here: How >>> > > many people >>> > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned >>> >> draft a WG >> >>> > draft *if* the >>> > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks, >>> > > > >>> > > > -shane >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ian Stanley >>> National Manager >>> Architecture & Design >>> IP & Data >>> Core Networks | Engineering >>> 02 9396 8508 >>> 0419 257221 >>> >>> This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or >>> >> copyright information >> >>> of Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you >>> >> are not an >> >>> intended recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or >>> rely on this communication, and any such action is unauthorised and >>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in >>> >> error, please >> >>> reply to this email to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, >>> and then delete both it and your reply. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Kireeti. >> ------- >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:42:05 -0500 > From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS > To: , > Message-ID: > <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0DE9766B@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I understand the concern with introducing a 2nd standards' approach for VPWS signaling. What's missing in the discussion is the flip side - the operator's concern which was the rationale for 4761 being a standard. An operator already supporting L3VPNs and VPLS using BGP signaling, will need to use a different protocol for VPWS? For an operator, the cost savings will be if they can use the same operations. To an operator, it's L2VPN. Operators not using BGP have different needs (and equipment). The need for a standard on this is no different than the rationale for having standards. Vendors against this as a standard will not be preventing it's use. And if they are supporting equipment in this market, it would seem in their interest to want a standard. > > On inter-domain, BGP is already a proven, scalable, easily applied (for operators with BGP), working technology. When interdomain L2VPNs are included in the charter, it would seem to be an obvious consideration. > > Deborah > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:24 PM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS > > It is always the strong preference of the IETF that we should only have ONE standards track method. > > There is precedence for this in PWE3 with SATOP which was universally agreed as a TDM method and hence was standards track. With CESoPSN and TDMoIP - on which there was no universal agreement both were published as informational. The position here is that *if* the market eventually decides on one of the two approaches that will be advanced to standards track - meanwhile we are waiting for the market. > > Similarly with the LDP vs RSVP PW signaling issue, it was agreed that unless there was a compelling reason to adopt a new signaling protocol we would remain with LDP for multi-segment PW signaling. > > We already have an agreed method of L2VPN signaling and an agreed method > > of L2VPN discovery. There is no need for an additional standards track approach, and to introduce one would not only be confusing, but will increase costs as equipment ends up implementing both methods and may well introduce interworking issues. > > We should take the normal approach here. If we think the concept merits an RFC, we should publish it as an informational. If at a later date the > > market decides that this is a preferred approach, then and only then should we consider standards track status for this approach. > > - Stewart > > > Kireeti Kompella wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Sasha Vainshtein wrote: >> >> >>> Ali and all, >>> Sorry, missed that fact completely. >>> >> Sasha, you were doing great, and thanks for that! Now, don't give up >> so easily! :-) >> >> This is the only solution that addresses both the auto-discovery and >> signaling aspects of an L2 *VPN*. The PWE solution only addresses >> signaling of a *PW*. An L2VPN consists of a number of related PWs >> (such as all those requested by an enterprise). >> >> I know full well that many would be happy to see this draft die, or be >> > > >> relegated to "informational", for whatever reasons. However, there >> are two important points that are being missed: >> >> a) this draft proposes very minor changes to an existing PS document >> (RFC 4761) >> b) the arguments that led to the standardization of both RFC 4761 and >> RFC 4762 hold equally here. >> >> >>> In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed >>> progressed as an Informational RFC. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sasha >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM >>> To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini) >>> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson >>> Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !! >>> >>> >>> I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a >>> standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS >>> signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt >>> >>> > > >>> (sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most the l2vpn >>> draft using BGP signaling (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should >>> > be > >>> just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward given that it >>> suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the >>> standard-track solution does NOT suffer. >>> >>> -Ali >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM >>> To: Luca Martini (lmartini) >>> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson >>> Subject: RE: Raising of hands ... >>> >>> >>> Luca and all, >>> I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable. >>> >>> In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially >>> the same problem. >>> Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to >>> publish both as Informational RFCs. >>> >>> IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have >>> several options: >>> >>> * Publish one as a Standards Track document and the other >>> one as Informational >>> * Publish both as Standards Track documents if the >>> differences in the applicability justify that (this is how this WG >>> > has > >>> published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS) >>> * Publish both as Informational if the differences in the >>> applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached >>> * Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not >>> really require alternative proposals:-) >>> >>> BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far. >>> >>> Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is >>> not enough IMHO. >>> You would need something close to the control plane sections of >>> RFC 4762, only more complicated. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sasha >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM >>> To: Loa Andersson >>> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: Raising of hands ... >>> >>> >>> Loa Andersson wrote: >>> >>> Loa Andersson wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yakov, >>> >>> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol >>> and uses >>> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc >>> ...) (though Kireeti >>> as usual is to lazy to capitalize. >>> >>> So, short of major rewriting this can be "informational". >>> >>> >>> So, short of major rewriting this can't be >>> "informational". >>> >>> >>> >>> Loa, >>> We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs >>> yet they have the same characteristics as this document. >>> So I do not agree that just because of the language of the >>> document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard >>> recommendation of the IETF. >>> I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single >>> common method. However it is also common practice to permit >>> > additional > >>> informational RFCs when needed. >>> I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for >>> autodiscovery. >>> >>> Luca >>> >>> >>> h >>> >>> >>> sorry about that >>> >>> /Loa >>> >>> >>> >>> /Loa >>> >>> Yaakov Stein wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I just wanted to clarify that I raised >>> my hand for making >>> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG >>> document, >>> but prefer it to be informational, not >>> standards-track. >>> >>> Y(J)S >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Kireeti. >> ------- >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > L2vpn mailing list > L2vpn@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn > > > End of L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 > ************************************ > > > > The content contained in this electronic message is not intended to > constitute formation of a contract binding TWTC. TWTC will be > contractually bound only upon execution, by an authorized officer, of > a contract including agreed terms and conditions or by express > application of its tariffs. > > This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity > to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for > delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to > the sender of this E-Mail or by telephone. > > From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 04 11:08:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ75q-00037M-1J; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:08:14 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ75o-00037E-OQ for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:08:12 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ75m-0006ck-Hj for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:08:12 -0400 Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2007 11:08:11 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l34F8AEe003493; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:08:10 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l34F7kH3018693; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:08:10 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:08:04 -0400 Received: from [10.83.15.52] ([10.83.15.52]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:08:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4613BB73.40103@cisco.com> References: <55C073AEE656224EBF05532B00818723013DD882@SRVMSXMB3.ad.twtelecom.com> <4613BB73.40103@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <337FFD6E-8924-4F66-A9DB-67408D927130@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:08:02 -0400 To: Luca Martini X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2007 15:08:03.0269 (UTC) FILETIME=[0AA9D750:01C776CB] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=23983; t=1175699290; x=1176563290; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=tnadeau@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Thomas=20D.=20Nadeau=22=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20L2vpn=20Digest,=20Vol=2036,=20Issue=202 |Sender:=20 |To:=20Luca=20Martini=20; bh=dKSs+JNtE3CV/s+x/z0Tf0ZwJVVBq8qjpNk9FuVwg/I=; b=pMI1EbrqKTbwviSlNBBg91tSI96lIVG+1NGkyitvN8agOCk7BniqFpf3GFUeW8Cn/6aIztau 08vdI1ykRuSaVwoqwKzWKFmaCRKS3E+u3KRpaPd3YfMKkW/VWHmHtA1L; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=tnadeau@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1dbd668ceca1a76e1ad844a781a4818d Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, darrow@juniper.net, jamesw@juniper.net, "Yu, Henry" Subject: Re: L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org > Yu, Henry wrote: >> As a network operator that has been using VPLS for a number of >> years, I'm very much a proponent of moving the draft-kompella- >> l2vpn-l2vpn along as a WG document within the Standards track. >> Interprovider VPNs have been addressed within rfc4364 and draft- >> kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn addresses these same options in a similar >> manner. Deborah made a very valid point when she stated "For an >> operator, the cost savings will be if they can use the same >> operations", which completely applies to why I would like to see >> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn stay within the Standards track. >> >> > Yu, > > To the point you make above , since we already have standard track > solutions that are widely deployed, how would it help to make yet > another solution that is not as widely deployed standard track ? > If anything it would make the inter-operations much more difficult > as different operators would choose different non inter-operable > standards. My question is are there any situations where this and the other standards track solution are deployed simultaneously? Also, are there any multi- vendor deployments where this solution alone, or in conjunction with the existing solution is/ are in use? --Tom > Luca > >> Cheers, >> >> Henry >> >> Sr. Manager, IP Architecture and Security >> >> Time Warner Telecom >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-request@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:00 AM >> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 >> >> Send L2vpn mailing list submissions to >> l2vpn@ietf.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> l2vpn-request@ietf.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> l2vpn-owner@ietf.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more >> specific than "Re: Contents of L2vpn digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 (Ali Sajassi (sajassi)) >> 2. RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS >> (BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS) >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:49:17 -0700 >> From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" >> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >> To: "Kireeti Kompella" >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Message-ID: >> <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFCF85@xmb- >> sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> >> Kireeti, >> >> Nice try :-) Although the charter doesn't include inter-AS and >> needs to be updated (as per charter text itself), the assumption >> all along has been that all L2VPN solutions will cover inter-AS. >> As the matter of fact, the L2VPN-requirement RFC (RFC 4665) has a >> clear set of requirements for inter-AS. Furthermore, the L2VPN- >> framework RFC (RFC >> 4664) also covers inter-AS. And last but not least, all the >> current standard-track VPLS and VPWS solutions do cover inter-AS >> scenarios. So, I would say we should spend our efforts in fixing >> the problem rather than bypassing it. >> >> Cheers, >> Ali >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] >>> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 8:43 PM >>> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >>> Cc: Ian Stanley; l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>> >>> Ali, >>> >>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Because of a few implementation of this solution, we are in >>>> >>> favor of >>> >>>> progressing it as informational RFC; otherwise, we would not even >>>> suggest the status of informational RFC for this draft. I >>>> >>> think what >>> >>>> people are saying is that before we talk about >>>> >>> standard-track RFC, we >>> >>>> need to really look at some of the issues that are related to this >>>> draft such as inter-AS as well as we need to look at >>>> >>> interoperability >>> >>>> issue between this solution and the current standard-track >>>> solution. >>>> >>> Inter-AS is NOT in the L2VPN charter, so it makes no sense to use >>> that >>> to block the progress of this document. In point of fact, the >>> inter-AS solution for this document is much more mature than that of >>> alternative solutions, and perhaps more to the point, there have >>> been >>> inter-AS *deployments* since March 2004. >>> >>> >>>> So, I >>>> think progressing this draft as informational RFC is a good >>>> >>> step till >>> >>>> these issues are addressed. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ali >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Ian Stanley [mailto:ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:19 PM >>>> To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); Max Ng; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); >>>> renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>>> >>>> >>>> Interesting debate and positioning, but one question of clarity >>>> please..."how does the market indicate its need to you to start the >>>> process for standard track" >>>> >>>> I would have thought that with many implementations of >>>> >>> this would be >>> >>>> enough >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30/3/07 5:53 PM, "Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal)" >>>> wrote:Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My "support" meant supporting Ali's comment. I >>>> >>> hope it didn't mean >>> >>>> something else :-). Yes, my preference is only >>>> >>> for *informational*. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Max Ng [mailto:mngpl@singnet.com.sg] >>>> Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 1:06 PM >>>> To: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal); 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)'; >>>> renweili@redback.com; 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; >>>> l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>>> >>>> A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My >>>> >>> preference is still to go >>> >>>> with >>>> informational on grounds that we focus on what >>>> >>> has already been >>> >>>> agreed >>>> upon >>>> and rid the confusion. Should the market in the >>>> >>> near future decide >>> >>>> otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) >>>> [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM >>>> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); >>>> >>> renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; >>> >>>> Shane >>>> Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>>> >>>> Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already >>>> >>> adopted for LDP based >>> >>>> method. >>>> We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and >>>> >>> MS-PW with LDP signaling >>> >>>> for >>>> PWE3. >>>> >>>> -Pranjal >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM >>>> To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; >>>> l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>>> >>>> >>>> And the current standard-track solution is based on the >>>> PWE3 control >>>> protocol (RFC 4447). >>>> >>>> -Ali >>>> >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] >>>> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM >>>> > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; >>>> >>> 'Shane Amante'; >>> >>>> > l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>>> > >>>> > When we decide something to be a standard track >>>> RFC or >>>> > informational RFC, do we need to take into >>>> >>> account how many >>> >>>> > deployments there are? If so, I see more >>>> >>> implementations and >>> >>>> > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. >>>> > >>>> > On the other hand, a standard should be >>>> >>> unique unless it is >>> >>>> > intended to potentially obsolete the other >>>> >>> ones. Do we intend >>> >>>> > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? >>>> > >>>> > Just some quick thoughts... >>>> > >>>> > Renwei >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >>>> [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >>>> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM >>>> > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>>> > >>>> > ... And I know many more networks that don't have >>>> such >>>> > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs >>>> >>> based on the >>> >>>> > standard-track solution specified in the >>>> >>> l2vpn-signaling >>> >>>> > draft. So, as I have said previously, given >>>> >>> that we have a >>> >>>> > comprehensive solution which is >>>> >>> standard-track, there is no >>> >>>> > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I >>>> > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. >>>> > >>>> > -Ali >>>> > >>>> > > -----Original Message----- >>>> > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] >>>> > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM >>>> > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>>> > > >>>> > > I know multiple networks where this is >>>> >>> already deployed, so >>> >>>> > I prefer >>>> > > it to become a standard. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > Cheers, >>>> > > >>>> > > Bruno >>>> > > >>>> > > > -----Original Message----- >>>> > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] >>>> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 >>>> > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >>>> > > > >>>> > > > I was approached by several people >>>> >>> outside the hallway just >>> >>>> > > after the >>>> > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion >>>> >>> over a poll in the >>> >>>> > room about >>>> > > > making this draft a WG document, in >>>> >>> particular over the >>> >>>> 'Intended >>>> > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: >>>> >>> Informational or Standards >>> >>>> Track. >>>> > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off >>>> >>> after running over >>> >>>> > > our time at >>>> > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they >>>> >>> could convert >>> >>>> > the room over >>>> > > for >>>> > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't >>>> >>> have time to clarify >>> >>>> > > it. So, my >>>> > > > apologies for the confusion. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question >>>> here: How >>>> > > many people >>>> > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned >>>> >>> draft a WG >>> >>>> > draft *if* the >>>> > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Thanks, >>>> > > > >>>> > > > -shane >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ian Stanley >>>> National Manager >>>> Architecture & Design >>>> IP & Data >>>> Core Networks | Engineering >>>> 02 9396 8508 >>>> 0419 257221 >>>> >>>> This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or >>>> >>> copyright information >>> >>>> of Telstra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you >>>> >>> are not an >>> >>>> intended recipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or >>>> rely on this communication, and any such action is unauthorised and >>>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in >>>> >>> error, please >>> >>>> reply to this email to notify the sender of its incorrect delivery, >>>> and then delete both it and your reply. Thank you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Kireeti. >>> ------- >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:42:05 -0500 >> From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" >> Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS >> To: , >> Message-ID: >> >> <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0DE9766B@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> I understand the concern with introducing a 2nd standards' >> approach for VPWS signaling. What's missing in the discussion is >> the flip side - the operator's concern which was the rationale for >> 4761 being a standard. An operator already supporting L3VPNs and >> VPLS using BGP signaling, will need to use a different protocol >> for VPWS? For an operator, the cost savings will be if they can >> use the same operations. To an operator, it's L2VPN. Operators not >> using BGP have different needs (and equipment). The need for a >> standard on this is no different than the rationale for having >> standards. Vendors against this as a standard will not be >> preventing it's use. And if they are supporting equipment in this >> market, it would seem in their interest to want a standard. >> >> On inter-domain, BGP is already a proven, scalable, easily applied >> (for operators with BGP), working technology. When interdomain >> L2VPNs are included in the charter, it would seem to be an obvious >> consideration. >> >> Deborah >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:24 PM >> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS >> >> It is always the strong preference of the IETF that we should only >> have ONE standards track method. >> >> There is precedence for this in PWE3 with SATOP which was >> universally agreed as a TDM method and hence was standards track. >> With CESoPSN and TDMoIP - on which there was no universal >> agreement both were published as informational. The position here >> is that *if* the market eventually decides on one of the two >> approaches that will be advanced to standards track - meanwhile >> we are waiting for the market. >> >> Similarly with the LDP vs RSVP PW signaling issue, it was agreed >> that unless there was a compelling reason to adopt a new signaling >> protocol we would remain with LDP for multi-segment PW signaling. >> >> We already have an agreed method of L2VPN signaling and an agreed >> method >> >> of L2VPN discovery. There is no need for an additional standards >> track approach, and to introduce one would not only be confusing, >> but will increase costs as equipment ends up implementing both >> methods and may well introduce interworking issues. >> >> We should take the normal approach here. If we think the concept >> merits an RFC, we should publish it as an informational. If at a >> later date the >> >> market decides that this is a preferred approach, then and only >> then should we consider standards track status for this approach. >> >> - Stewart >> >> >> Kireeti Kompella wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Sasha Vainshtein wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Ali and all, >>>> Sorry, missed that fact completely. >>>> >>> Sasha, you were doing great, and thanks for that! Now, don't >>> give up >>> so easily! :-) >>> >>> This is the only solution that addresses both the auto-discovery and >>> signaling aspects of an L2 *VPN*. The PWE solution only addresses >>> signaling of a *PW*. An L2VPN consists of a number of related PWs >>> (such as all those requested by an enterprise). >>> >>> I know full well that many would be happy to see this draft die, >>> or be >>> >> >> >>> relegated to "informational", for whatever reasons. However, there >>> are two important points that are being missed: >>> >>> a) this draft proposes very minor changes to an existing PS document >>> (RFC 4761) >>> b) the arguments that led to the standardization of both RFC 4761 >>> and >>> RFC 4762 hold equally here. >>> >>> >>>> In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed >>>> progressed as an Informational RFC. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sasha >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM >>>> To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini) >>>> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson >>>> Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !! >>>> >>>> >>>> I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a >>>> standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS >>>> signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn- >>>> signaling-08.txt >>>> >>>> >> > signaling-08.txt> >> >>>> (sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most the >>>> l2vpn >>>> draft using BGP signaling (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) >>>> should >>>> >> be >> >>>> just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward given >>>> that it >>>> suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the >>>> standard-track solution does NOT suffer. >>>> >>>> -Ali >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM >>>> To: Luca Martini (lmartini) >>>> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson >>>> Subject: RE: Raising of hands ... >>>> >>>> >>>> Luca and all, >>>> I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable. >>>> >>>> In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving essentially >>>> the same problem. >>>> Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has opted to >>>> publish both as Informational RFCs. >>>> >>>> IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG would have >>>> several options: >>>> >>>> * Publish one as a Standards Track document and the other >>>> one as Informational >>>> * Publish both as Standards Track documents if the >>>> differences in the applicability justify that (this is how this WG >>>> >> has >> >>>> published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS) >>>> * Publish both as Informational if the differences in the >>>> applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached >>>> * Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not >>>> really require alternative proposals:-) >>>> >>>> BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far. >>>> >>>> Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set using LDP is >>>> not enough IMHO. >>>> You would need something close to the control plane sections of >>>> RFC 4762, only more complicated. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sasha >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM >>>> To: Loa Andersson >>>> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: Raising of hands ... >>>> >>>> >>>> Loa Andersson wrote: >>>> >>>> Loa Andersson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Yakov, >>>> >>>> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies protocol >>>> and uses >>>> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc >>>> ...) (though Kireeti >>>> as usual is to lazy to capitalize. >>>> >>>> So, short of major rewriting this can be >>>> "informational". >>>> >>>> >>>> So, short of major rewriting this can't be >>>> "informational". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Loa, >>>> We have several documents from PWE3 that are informational RFCs >>>> yet they have the same characteristics as this document. >>>> So I do not agree that just because of the language of the >>>> document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard >>>> recommendation of the IETF. >>>> I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single >>>> common method. However it is also common practice to permit >>>> >> additional >> >>>> informational RFCs when needed. >>>> I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use of BGP for >>>> autodiscovery. >>>> >>>> Luca >>>> >>>> >>>> h >>>> >>>> >>>> sorry about that >>>> >>>> /Loa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> /Loa >>>> >>>> Yaakov Stein wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I just wanted to clarify that I raised >>>> my hand for making >>>> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG >>>> document, >>>> but prefer it to be informational, not >>>> standards-track. >>>> >>>> Y(J)S >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Kireeti. >>> ------- >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> L2vpn mailing list >> L2vpn@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn >> >> >> End of L2vpn Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2 >> ************************************ >> >> >> >> The content contained in this electronic message is not intended to >> constitute formation of a contract binding TWTC. TWTC will be >> contractually bound only upon execution, by an authorized officer, of >> a contract including agreed terms and conditions or by express >> application of its tariffs. >> >> This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity >> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the >> intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for >> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby >> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this >> message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this >> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to >> the sender of this E-Mail or by telephone. >> >> From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 04 11:18:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ7Ez-0008SL-DT; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:17:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ7Ey-0008SF-NJ for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:17:40 -0400 Received: from audl953.usa.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.162]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ7Ey-0000pS-33 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:17:40 -0400 Received: from usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com (usdalsbhs02.usa.alcatel.com [172.22.216.13]) by audl953.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id l34FHbbw014071; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:17:37 -0500 Received: from USDALSMBS03.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.8]) by usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:17:36 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:17:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4A5028372622294A99B8FFF6BD06EB7B01E2BAD7@USDALSMBS03.ad3.ad.alcatel.com> In-Reply-To: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFD4F6@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS Thread-Index: AcdyJ5Nlj+/wwne+SwWGb0T4g2rEVwD2kiZAAAiA4tAAKZ5tIA== From: "BALUS Florin" To: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" , "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" , "Stewart Bryant \(stbryant\)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2007 15:17:36.0745 (UTC) FILETIME=[607B5590:01C776CC] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 143.209.238.34 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 872695ea777a517bf5717e5acc69f8be Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org I agree with Ali, BGP Auto-discovery from L2VPN Signaling draft does cover the requirements for similar operational model with L3VPNs. =20 On the signaling side, I will add that we spent a lot of effort into standardizing in PWE3 a number of P2P Signaling solutions to address SP Requirements based on LDP Signaling. Are we supposed to go back and to redo all this work for BGP signaling? And then to keep discussing/developing two standards tracks for every new PWE3 proposals?=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:53 PM > To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS; Stewart Bryant (stbryant);=20 > l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS >=20 > =20 > Hi Deborah, >=20 > I agree with you that from operational point of view, an=20 > operator who is used to L3VPN operation would like to=20 > leverage its L3VPN mechanism for its VPLS and VPWS services.=20 > However, the question is that where does the bulk of this=20 > leverage comes from: BGP auto-discovery versus BGP signaling.=20 > And if we look into the details, all the advantages that one=20 > would get from L3VPN operation (both intra as well as inter AS > scenarios) come from BGP auto-discovery where one can use=20 > similar constructs of L3VPN such as using RT to define a=20 > topology and RD for unique identification in VPLS and VPWS as=20 > well as well as leveraging all the scalability and advantages of BGP. >=20 > On the other hand, the BGP signaling of L3VPN and VPLS/VPWS=20 > are quite different because in case of VPLS/VPWS, there must=20 > be a point-to-point association between the two PEs whereas,=20 > there is no such requirement what so ever in L3VPN and thus=20 > resulting in big divergence from L3VPN operation model. As=20 > the matter of fact not only this is causing a divergence but=20 > also introducing significant restriction for inter-AS=20 > operation where now different Autonomous Systems must=20 > coordinate their CE-id assignment among themselves. This=20 > restriction never existed in L3VPN autonomous systems where=20 > they operated independently from one another - as the name=20 > "Autonomous System" implies.=20 >=20 > Last but not least, one must also consider the=20 > interoperability between BGP and LDP signaling for VPWS and=20 > how it works which I am sure it easier said than done.=20 >=20 > Regards, > Ali >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:42 AM > > To: Stewart Bryant (stbryant); l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS > >=20 > > I understand the concern with introducing a 2nd standards'=20 > > approach for VPWS signaling. What's missing in the=20 > discussion is the=20 > > flip side - the operator's concern which was the rationale for 4761=20 > > being a standard. An operator already supporting L3VPNs and=20 > VPLS using=20 > > BGP signaling, will need to use a different protocol for=20 > VPWS? For an=20 > > operator, the cost savings will be if they can use the same=20 > > operations. To an operator, it's L2VPN. Operators not using=20 > BGP have=20 > > different needs (and equipment). The need for a standard on=20 > this is no=20 > > different than the rationale for having standards. Vendors against=20 > > this as a standard will not be preventing it's use. > > And if they are supporting equipment in this market, it=20 > would seem in=20 > > their interest to want a standard. > >=20 > > On inter-domain, BGP is already a proven, scalable, easily applied=20 > > (for operators with BGP), working technology. When=20 > interdomain L2VPNs=20 > > are included in the charter, it would seem to be an obvious=20 > > consideration. > >=20 > > Deborah > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:24 PM > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 to PS > >=20 > > It is always the strong preference of the IETF that we should only=20 > > have ONE standards track method. > >=20 > > There is precedence for this in PWE3 with SATOP which was=20 > universally=20 > > agreed as a TDM method and hence was standards track. With=20 > CESoPSN and=20 > > TDMoIP - on which there was no universal agreement both=20 > were published=20 > > as informational. The position here is that *if* the market=20 > eventually=20 > > decides on one of the two approaches that will be advanced to=20 > > standards track - meanwhile we are waiting for the market. > >=20 > > Similarly with the LDP vs RSVP PW signaling issue, it was=20 > agreed that=20 > > unless there was a compelling reason to adopt a new=20 > signaling protocol=20 > > we would remain with LDP for multi-segment PW signaling. > >=20 > > We already have an agreed method of L2VPN signaling and an agreed=20 > > method > >=20 > > of L2VPN discovery. There is no need for an additional=20 > standards track=20 > > approach, and to introduce one would not only be confusing,=20 > but will=20 > > increase costs as equipment ends up implementing both=20 > methods and may=20 > > well introduce interworking issues. > >=20 > > We should take the normal approach here. If we think the concept=20 > > merits an RFC, we should publish it as an informational. If=20 > at a later=20 > > date the > >=20 > > market decides that this is a preferred approach, then and=20 > only then=20 > > should we consider standards track status for this approach. > >=20 > > - Stewart > >=20 > >=20 > > Kireeti Kompella wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Sasha Vainshtein wrote: > > > > > >> Ali and all, > > >> Sorry, missed that fact completely. > > > > > > Sasha, you were doing great, and thanks for that! Now, > > don't give up > > > so easily! :-) > > > > > > This is the only solution that addresses both the > > auto-discovery and > > > signaling aspects of an L2 *VPN*. The PWE solution only=20 > addresses=20 > > > signaling of a *PW*. An L2VPN consists of a number of=20 > related PWs=20 > > > (such as all those requested by an enterprise). > > > > > > I know full well that many would be happy to see this draft > > die, or be > >=20 > > > relegated to "informational", for whatever reasons. =20 > However, there=20 > > > are two important points that are being missed: > > > > > > a) this draft proposes very minor changes to an existing=20 > PS document > > > (RFC 4761) > > > b) the arguments that led to the standardization of both > > RFC 4761 and > > > RFC 4762 hold equally here. > > > > > >> In this case draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt should be indeed=20 > > >> progressed as an Informational RFC. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Sasha > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> > > >> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:48 PM > > >> To: Sasha Vainshtein; Luca Martini (lmartini) > > >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson > > >> Subject: Standard solution for L2VPN signaling already exist !! > > >> > > >> > > >> I am changing the "subject" to reflect the important fact that a=20 > > >> standard-track solution already exist for general L2VPN and VPWS=20 > > >> signaling which is specified in section 3.3 of > > >>=20 > >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt > > >> > > > g-08.txt> > > >> (sitting in RFC-Editor queue). Therefore, I think, at most > > the l2vpn > > >> draft using BGP signaling > > (draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02.txt) should be > > >> just an informational RFC if we want to move it forward > > given that it > > >> suffers from the issue I mention during the WG meeting where the=20 > > >> standard-track solution does NOT suffer. > > >> > > >> -Ali > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> > > >> From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com] > > >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:12 AM > > >> To: Luca Martini (lmartini) > > >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org; Loa Andersson > > >> Subject: RE: Raising of hands ... > > >> > > >> > > >> Luca and all, > > >> I am not sure the PWE3 precedent you quote is applicable. > > >> > > >> In that case we had TWO competing proposals solving > > essentially > > >> the same problem. > > >> Not being able to reach a consensus, the PWE3 WG has=20 > opted to=20 > > >> publish both as Informational RFCs. > > >> > > >> IF there were an alternative proposal, the L2VPN WG=20 > would have=20 > > >> several options: > > >> > > >> * Publish one as a Standards Track document and the other > > >> one as Informational > > >> * Publish both as Standards Track documents if the > > >> differences in the applicability justify that (this is=20 > how this WG > > has > > >> published both RFC 4761 and RFC 4762 as PS) > > >> * Publish both as Informational if the differences in the > > >> applicability are not substantial and consensus cannot be reached > > >> * Drop all (well, this is always an option and does not > > >> really require alternative proposals:-) > > >> > > >> BUT I have not seen any alternative proposals so far. > > >> > > >> Simply stating that all the PWs in a PVWS are set=20 > using LDP is=20 > > >> not enough IMHO. > > >> You would need something close to the control plane > > sections of > > >> RFC 4762, only more complicated. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Sasha > > >> ________________________________ > > >> > > >> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com] > > >> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:16 PM > > >> To: Loa Andersson > > >> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; l2vpn@ietf.org > > >> Subject: Re: Raising of hands ... > > >> > > >> > > >> Loa Andersson wrote: > > >> > > >> Loa Andersson wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> Yakov, > > >> > > >> not sure here, but I think the draft specifies > > protocol > > >> and uses > > >> the normative IETF language (MUST, SHOULD, etc > > >> ...) (though Kireeti > > >> as usual is to lazy to capitalize. > > >> > > >> So, short of major rewriting this can be > > "informational". > > >> > > >> > > >> So, short of major rewriting this can't be=20 > "informational". > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Loa, > > >> We have several documents from PWE3 that are=20 > informational RFCs > > >> yet they have the same characteristics as this document. > > >> So I do not agree that just because of the language of the > > >> document or what it defines , this is going to be a standard > > >> recommendation of the IETF. > > >> I believe it is standard IETF policy to standardize a single > > >> common method. However it is also common practice to permit > > additional > > >> informational RFCs when needed. > > >> I believe that we settled on an LDP PW , and the use=20 > of BGP for > > >> autodiscovery. > > >> > > >> Luca > > >> > > >> > > >> h > > >> > > >> > > >> sorry about that > > >> > > >> /Loa > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> /Loa > > >> > > >> Yaakov Stein wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I just wanted to clarify that I raised > > >> my hand for making > > >> draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn a WG > > >> document, > > >> but prefer it to be informational, not > > >> standards-track. > > >> > > >> Y(J)S > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Kireeti. > > > ------- > > > > >=20 >=20 >=20 From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 04 15:36:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZBGJ-0008W3-F4; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:35:19 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZBGI-0008Vn-Di for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:35:18 -0400 Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZBGH-0006C1-70 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:35:18 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D739644A5 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:35:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4613FDF2.1010500@castlepoint.net> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 13:35:14 -0600 From: Shane Amante User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org The call to make this a WG draft on the Standards Track has ended. At this point, there is no consensus to make this a WG draft on the Standards Track, due to the fact that responses were almost evenly divided between proceeding it as Informational vs. Standards Track. We'll work with the authors to figure out another, hopefully more agreeable, path forward for this document. Once we have agreement on that, we'll be sure to inform the list. -shane From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pL-4K; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVpRu-0002d6-8N for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:26 -0400 Received: from virus-out-st.online.no ([193.212.240.200]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVpRo-0000DG-LG for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:26 -0400 Received: from TNS-FBU-22-241.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.162.97] [134.47.162.97]) by scan.telenor.net with ESMTP for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:04 +0200 Received: from tns-fbu-22-213.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.162.191]) by TNS-FBU-22-241.corp.telenor.no with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 Received: from TNS-FBU-2E-011.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.163.231]) by tns-fbu-22-213.corp.telenor.no with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 Message-Id: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: AcdvrF/tml/3G8/mQf6T6iPOUEWCNw== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2007 13:41:00.0739 (UTC) FILETIME=[64134130:01C76FAC] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2ed806e2f53ff1a061ad4f97e00345ac X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:12 -0400 Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support Standard Track. Lei -----Original Message----- From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" To: "Shane Amante" ; l2vpn at ietf.org Sent: 3/23/07 12:02 PM Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Support *Standards Track*- Deborah=20 -----Original Message----- From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane at castlepoint.net]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM To: l2vpn at ietf.org Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the=20 L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20 making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20 Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20 Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at=20 the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my=20 apologies for the confusion. Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people=20 are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? Thanks, -shane ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pL-4K; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVpRu-0002d6-8N for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:26 -0400 Received: from virus-out-st.online.no ([193.212.240.200]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVpRo-0000DG-LG for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:26 -0400 Received: from TNS-FBU-22-241.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.162.97] [134.47.162.97]) by scan.telenor.net with ESMTP for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:04 +0200 Received: from tns-fbu-22-213.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.162.191]) by TNS-FBU-22-241.corp.telenor.no with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 Received: from TNS-FBU-2E-011.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.163.231]) by tns-fbu-22-213.corp.telenor.no with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 Message-Id: <DFE431F9E5B2AF49BE9C88C46CEAEA7801E029E9@TNS-FBU-2E-011.corp.telenor.no> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: AcdvrF/tml/3G8/mQf6T6iPOUEWCNw== From: <Lei.Wang@telenor.com> To: <l2vpn@ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2007 13:41:00.0739 (UTC) FILETIME=[64134130:01C76FAC] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2ed806e2f53ff1a061ad4f97e00345ac X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:12 -0400 Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support Standard Track. Lei -----Original Message----- From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard at att.com> To: "Shane Amante" <shane at castlepoint.net>; l2vpn at ietf.org Sent: 3/23/07 12:02 PM Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Support *Standards Track*- Deborah=20 -----Original Message----- From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane at castlepoint.net]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM To: l2vpn at ietf.org Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the=20 L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20 making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20 Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20 Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at=20 the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my=20 apologies for the confusion. Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people=20 are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? Thanks, -shane ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 6.5.7650.5"> <TITLE>RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pL-4K; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVpRu-0002d6-8N for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:26 -0400 Received: from virus-out-st.online.no ([193.212.240.200]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVpRo-0000DG-LG for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:26 -0400 Received: from TNS-FBU-22-241.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.162.97] [134.47.162.97]) by scan.telenor.net with ESMTP for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:04 +0200 Received: from tns-fbu-22-213.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.162.191]) by TNS-FBU-22-241.corp.telenor.no with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 Received: from TNS-FBU-2E-011.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.163.231]) by tns-fbu-22-213.corp.telenor.no with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 Message-Id: <DFE431F9E5B2AF49BE9C88C46CEAEA7801E029E9@TNS-FBU-2E-011.corp.telenor.no> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: AcdvrF/tml/3G8/mQf6T6iPOUEWCNw== From: <Lei.Wang@telenor.com> To: <l2vpn@ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2007 13:41:00.0739 (UTC) FILETIME=[64134130:01C76FAC] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2ed806e2f53ff1a061ad4f97e00345ac X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:12 -0400 Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support Standard Track. Lei -----Original Message----- From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard at att.com> To: "Shane Amante" <shane at castlepoint.net>; l2vpn at ietf.org Sent: 3/23/07 12:02 PM Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Support *Standards Track*- Deborah=20 -----Original Message----- From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane at castlepoint.net]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM To: l2vpn at ietf.org Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the=20 L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20 making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20 Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20 Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at=20 the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my=20 apologies for the confusion. Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people=20 are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? Thanks, -shane ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 6.5.7650.5"> <TITLE>RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: <l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org> Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pL-4K; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVpRu-0002d6-8N for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:26 -0400 Received: from virus-out-st.online.no ([193.212.240.200]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVpRo-0000DG-LG for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:41:26 -0400 Received: from TNS-FBU-22-241.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.162.97] [134.47.162.97]) by scan.telenor.net with ESMTP for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:04 +0200 Received: from tns-fbu-22-213.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.162.191]) by TNS-FBU-22-241.corp.telenor.no with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 Received: from TNS-FBU-2E-011.corp.telenor.no ([134.47.163.231]) by tns-fbu-22-213.corp.telenor.no with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:00 +0200 Message-Id: <DFE431F9E5B2AF49BE9C88C46CEAEA7801E029E9@TNS-FBU-2E-011.corp.telenor.no> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: AcdvrF/tml/3G8/mQf6T6iPOUEWCNw== From: <Lei.Wang@telenor.com> To: <l2vpn@ietf.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2007 13:41:00.0739 (UTC) FILETIME=[64134130:01C76FAC] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2ed806e2f53ff1a061ad4f97e00345ac X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:12 -0400 Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support Standard Track. Lei -----Original Message----- From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" <dbrungard at att.com> To: "Shane Amante" <shane at castlepoint.net>; l2vpn at ietf.org Sent: 3/23/07 12:02 PM Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Support *Standards Track*- Deborah=20 -----Original Message----- From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane at castlepoint.net]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM To: l2vpn at ietf.org Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the=20 L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about=20 making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended=20 Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.=20 Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at=20 the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my=20 apologies for the confusion. Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people=20 are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the=20 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? Thanks, -shane ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 6.5.7650.5"> <TITLE>RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Support Standard Track.

Lei

-----Original Message-----
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, = ATTLABS" <dbrungard at att.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane = at castlepoint.net>; l2vpn at ietf.org
Sent: 3/23/07 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Support *Standards Track*-
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane = at castlepoint.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 = PM
To: l2vpn at ietf.org
Subject: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

I was approached by several people = outside the hallway just after the
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion = over a poll in the room about
making this draft a WG document, in = particular over the 'Intended
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: = Informational or Standards Track.
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut = off after running over our time at
the end of the meeting, in order so = they could convert the room over for

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't = have time to clarify it.  So, my
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise = question here: How many people
are in favor of making the = aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
'Intended Status' is Standards = Track?

Thanks,

-shane

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pX-QF; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWDZp-0000pR-PF for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:27:13 -0400 Received: from cluster-a.mailcontrol.com ([80.69.8.190]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWDZk-00052a-Vj for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:27:13 -0400 Received: from lon-sweeper.flagtelecom.com (mail.flagtelecom.com [62.216.151.5]) by rly21a.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id l2RFQWUx021865 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:33 +0100 Received: from lon-ias.flagtelecom.com (lon-email.flagtelecom.com) by lon-sweeper.flagtelecom.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:09 +0100 Received: by lon-ias.flagtelecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.27) id <1K8FKXY7>; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:25:26 +0100 Message-ID: <147955311569D511AD0D00508B66753003667F77@lon-emailcl.flagtelecom.com> From: "Cheng, George" To: "'shane@castlepoint.net'" Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 02

Support Standard Track.

Lei

-----Original Message-----
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, = ATTLABS" <dbrungard at att.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane = at castlepoint.net>; l2vpn at ietf.org
Sent: 3/23/07 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Support *Standards Track*-
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane = at castlepoint.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 = PM
To: l2vpn at ietf.org
Subject: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

I was approached by several people = outside the hallway just after the
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion = over a poll in the room about
making this draft a WG document, in = particular over the 'Intended
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: = Informational or Standards Track.
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut = off after running over our time at
the end of the meeting, in order so = they could convert the room over for

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't = have time to clarify it.  So, my
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise = question here: How many people
are in favor of making the = aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
'Intended Status' is Standards = Track?

Thanks,

-shane

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pX-QF; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWDZp-0000pR-PF for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:27:13 -0400 Received: from cluster-a.mailcontrol.com ([80.69.8.190]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWDZk-00052a-Vj for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:27:13 -0400 Received: from lon-sweeper.flagtelecom.com (mail.flagtelecom.com [62.216.151.5]) by rly21a.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id l2RFQWUx021865 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:33 +0100 Received: from lon-ias.flagtelecom.com (lon-email.flagtelecom.com) by lon-sweeper.flagtelecom.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:09 +0100 Received: by lon-ias.flagtelecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.27) id <1K8FKXY7>; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:25:26 +0100 Message-ID: <147955311569D511AD0D00508B66753003667F77@lon-emailcl.flagtelecom.com> From: "Cheng, George" To: "'shane@castlepoint.net'" Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 02

Support Standard Track.

Lei

-----Original Message-----
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, = ATTLABS" <dbrungard at att.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane = at castlepoint.net>; l2vpn at ietf.org
Sent: 3/23/07 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Support *Standards Track*-
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane = at castlepoint.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 = PM
To: l2vpn at ietf.org
Subject: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

I was approached by several people = outside the hallway just after the
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion = over a poll in the room about
making this draft a WG document, in = particular over the 'Intended
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: = Informational or Standards Track.
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut = off after running over our time at
the end of the meeting, in order so = they could convert the room over for

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't = have time to clarify it.  So, my
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise = question here: How many people
are in favor of making the = aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
'Intended Status' is Standards = Track?

Thanks,

-shane

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pX-QF; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWDZp-0000pR-PF for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:27:13 -0400 Received: from cluster-a.mailcontrol.com ([80.69.8.190]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWDZk-00052a-Vj for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:27:13 -0400 Received: from lon-sweeper.flagtelecom.com (mail.flagtelecom.com [62.216.151.5]) by rly21a.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id l2RFQWUx021865 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:33 +0100 Received: from lon-ias.flagtelecom.com (lon-email.flagtelecom.com) by lon-sweeper.flagtelecom.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:09 +0100 Received: by lon-ias.flagtelecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.27) id <1K8FKXY7>; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:25:26 +0100 Message-ID: <147955311569D511AD0D00508B66753003667F77@lon-emailcl.flagtelecom.com> From: "Cheng, George" To: "'shane@castlepoint.net'" Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 02

Support Standard Track.

Lei

-----Original Message-----
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, = ATTLABS" <dbrungard at att.com>
To: "Shane Amante" <shane = at castlepoint.net>; l2vpn at ietf.org
Sent: 3/23/07 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Support *Standards Track*-
Deborah

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane = at castlepoint.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 = PM
To: l2vpn at ietf.org
Subject: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

I was approached by several people = outside the hallway just after the
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion = over a poll in the room about
making this draft a WG document, in = particular over the 'Intended
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: = Informational or Standards Track.
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut = off after running over our time at
the end of the meeting, in order so = they could convert the room over for

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't = have time to clarify it.  So, my
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise = question here: How many people
are in favor of making the = aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
'Intended Status' is Standards = Track?

Thanks,

-shane

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FAC.63FFE11A-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pX-QF; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWDZp-0000pR-PF for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:27:13 -0400 Received: from cluster-a.mailcontrol.com ([80.69.8.190]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWDZk-00052a-Vj for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:27:13 -0400 Received: from lon-sweeper.flagtelecom.com (mail.flagtelecom.com [62.216.151.5]) by rly21a.srv.mailcontrol.com (MailControl) with ESMTP id l2RFQWUx021865 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:33 +0100 Received: from lon-ias.flagtelecom.com (lon-email.flagtelecom.com) by lon-sweeper.flagtelecom.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:09 +0100 Received: by lon-ias.flagtelecom.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.27) id <1K8FKXY7>; Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:25:26 +0100 Message-ID: <147955311569D511AD0D00508B66753003667F77@lon-emailcl.flagtelecom.com> From: "Cheng, George" To: "'shane@castlepoint.net'" Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:26:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.27) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C77084.3FEA668E" X-Scanned-By: MailControl A-06-00-00 (www.mailcontrol.com) on 10.65.0.131 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bdfdd9dd835c9bb499f7c92933fef080 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:10 -0400 Cc: "'l2vpn@ietf.org'" Subject: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org 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_01C77084.3FEA668E Content-Type: text/plain Hi Shane, Flag Telecom has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In addition, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF following the standard track instead of ending up as informational RFC. ============ George Cheng Chief Network Architect Flag Telecom (www.flagtelecom.com) gcheng@flagtelecom.com -----Original Message----- From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my apologies for the confusion. Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? Thanks, -shane ********************************************************************** This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may be confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com immediately and delete the original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems. This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses. ********************************************************************** This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl - www.mailcontrol.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C77084.3FEA668E Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org 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_01C77084.3FEA668E Content-Type: text/plain Hi Shane, Flag Telecom has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In addition, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF following the standard track instead of ending up as informational RFC. ============ George Cheng Chief Network Architect Flag Telecom (www.flagtelecom.com) gcheng@flagtelecom.com -----Original Message----- From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my apologies for the confusion. Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? Thanks, -shane ********************************************************************** This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may be confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com immediately and delete the original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems. This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses. ********************************************************************** This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl - www.mailcontrol.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C77084.3FEA668E Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org 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_01C77084.3FEA668E Content-Type: text/plain Hi Shane, Flag Telecom has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In addition, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF following the standard track instead of ending up as informational RFC. ============ George Cheng Chief Network Architect Flag Telecom (www.flagtelecom.com) gcheng@flagtelecom.com -----Original Message----- From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my apologies for the confusion. Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? Thanks, -shane ********************************************************************** This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may be confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com immediately and delete the original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems. This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses. ********************************************************************** This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl - www.mailcontrol.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C77084.3FEA668E Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org 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_01C77084.3FEA668E Content-Type: text/plain Hi Shane, Flag Telecom has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In addition, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF following the standard track instead of ending up as informational RFC. ============ George Cheng Chief Network Architect Flag Telecom (www.flagtelecom.com) gcheng@flagtelecom.com -----Original Message----- From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my apologies for the confusion. Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? Thanks, -shane ********************************************************************** This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may be confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com immediately and delete the original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems. This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses. ********************************************************************** This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl - www.mailcontrol.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C77084.3FEA668E Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Shane,=

&nbs= p;

Flag Tele= com has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In additi= on, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF follo= wing the standard track instead of ending up as informational RFC.

&nbs= p;

=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

George Ch= eng

Chief Net= work Architect

Flag Tele= com (www.flagtelecom.com)

gcheng@fl= agtelecom.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM

Hi Shane,=

&nbs= p;

Flag Tele= com has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In additi= on, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF follo= wing the standard track instead of ending up as informational RFC.

&nbs= p;

=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

George Ch= eng

Chief Net= work Architect

Flag Tele= com (www.flagtelecom.com)

gcheng@fl= agtelecom.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM

Hi Shane,=

&nbs= p;

Flag Tele= com has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In additi= on, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF follo= wing the standard track instead of ending up as informational RFC.

&nbs= p;

=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

George Ch= eng

Chief Net= work Architect

Flag Tele= com (www.flagtelecom.com)

gcheng@fl= agtelecom.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM

Hi Shane,=

&nbs= p;

Flag Tele= com has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In additi= on, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF follo= wing the standard track instead of ending up as informational RFC.

&nbs= p;

=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

George Ch= eng

Chief Net= work Architect

Flag Tele= com (www.flagtelecom.com)

gcheng@fl= agtelecom.com

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM

To: l2vpn@ietf.org

Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02=

 

I was approached by several people outside the hallway j= ust after the

L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about

making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended

Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standar= ds Track.

Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running ov= er our time at

the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert t= he room over for

 

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clari= fy it.  So, my

apologies for the confusion.

 

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: H= ow many people

are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG dra= ft *if* the

'Intended Status' is Standards Track?<= /font>

 

Thanks,

 

-shane



**********************************************************************
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the=
individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may b= e
confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or
distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is
strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor d= isclose
the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in erro= r, please
notify us by email to postmasternt size=3D2 face=3DArial>To: l2vpn@ietf.org

Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02=

 

I was approached by several people outside the hallway j= ust after the

L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about

making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended

Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standar= ds Track.

Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running ov= er our time at

the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert t= he room over for

 

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clari= fy it.  So, my

apologies for the confusion.

 

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: H= ow many people

are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG dra= ft *if* the

'Intended Status' is Standards Track?<= /font>

 

Thanks,

 

-shane



**********************************************************************
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the=
individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may b= e
confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or
distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is
strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor d= isclose
the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in erro= r, please
notify us by email to postmasternt size=3D2 face=3DArial>To: l2vpn@ietf.org

Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02=

 

I was approached by several people outside the hallway j= ust after the

L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about

making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended

Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standar= ds Track.

Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running ov= er our time at

the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert t= he room over for

 

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clari= fy it.  So, my

apologies for the confusion.

 

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: H= ow many people

are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG dra= ft *if* the

'Intended Status' is Standards Track?<= /font>

 

Thanks,

 

-shane



**********************************************************************
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the=
individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may b= e
confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or
distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is
strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor d= isclose
the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in erro= r, please
notify us by email to postmasternt size=3D2 face=3DArial>To: l2vpn@ietf.org

Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02=

 

I was approached by several people outside the hallway j= ust after the

L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about

making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended

Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standar= ds Track.

Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running ov= er our time at

the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert t= he room over for

 

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clari= fy it.  So, my

apologies for the confusion.

 

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: H= ow many people

are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG dra= ft *if* the

'Intended Status' is Standards Track?<= /font>

 

Thanks,

 

-shane



**********************************************************************
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the=
individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may b= e
confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or
distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is
strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor d= isclose
the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in erro= r, please
notify us by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com immediately and delete the=
original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems= .


This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG
Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses.
**********************************************************************

This message ha= s been scanned for viruses by MailControl, a service from BlackSpider Technologies.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C77084.3FEA668E-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pR-Fc; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVv4J-0001KK-4d for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:27 -0400 Received: from stomail01.se.dataphone.com ([212.37.6.240]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVv4H-0003Xq-OC for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:27 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A" Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:40:50 +0200 Message-ID: <039BED0949CA9C4AB253EBDA3ADDAA3201F9CB82@stomail01.se.dataphone.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: Acdv3qiXjUrnj0rdR3qZqjvSDkdDdA== From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bengt-Erik_Sandstr=F6m?= To: , X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:10 -0400 Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,=20 Support standard track =20 Regards Bengt-Erik Sandstrom=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems= .


This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG
Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses.
**********************************************************************

This message ha= s been scanned for viruses by MailControl, a service from BlackSpider Technologies.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C77084.3FEA668E-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pR-Fc; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVv4J-0001KK-4d for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:27 -0400 Received: from stomail01.se.dataphone.com ([212.37.6.240]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVv4H-0003Xq-OC for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:27 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A" Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:40:50 +0200 Message-ID: <039BED0949CA9C4AB253EBDA3ADDAA3201F9CB82@stomail01.se.dataphone.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: Acdv3qiXjUrnj0rdR3qZqjvSDkdDdA== From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bengt-Erik_Sandstr=F6m?= To: , X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:10 -0400 Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,=20 Support standard track =20 Regards Bengt-Erik Sandstrom=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems= .


This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG
Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses.
**********************************************************************

This message ha= s been scanned for viruses by MailControl, a service from BlackSpider Technologies.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C77084.3FEA668E-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pR-Fc; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVv4J-0001KK-4d for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:27 -0400 Received: from stomail01.se.dataphone.com ([212.37.6.240]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVv4H-0003Xq-OC for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:27 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A" Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:40:50 +0200 Message-ID: <039BED0949CA9C4AB253EBDA3ADDAA3201F9CB82@stomail01.se.dataphone.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: Acdv3qiXjUrnj0rdR3qZqjvSDkdDdA== From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bengt-Erik_Sandstr=F6m?= To: , X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:10 -0400 Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,=20 Support standard track =20 Regards Bengt-Erik Sandstrom=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems= .


This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG
Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses.
**********************************************************************

This message ha= s been scanned for viruses by MailControl, a service from BlackSpider Technologies.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C77084.3FEA668E-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPD-0002pR-Fc; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVv4J-0001KK-4d for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:27 -0400 Received: from stomail01.se.dataphone.com ([212.37.6.240]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVv4H-0003Xq-OC for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:41:27 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A" Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:40:50 +0200 Message-ID: <039BED0949CA9C4AB253EBDA3ADDAA3201F9CB82@stomail01.se.dataphone.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: Acdv3qiXjUrnj0rdR3qZqjvSDkdDdA== From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bengt-Erik_Sandstr=F6m?= To: , X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:10 -0400 Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,=20 Support standard track =20 Regards Bengt-Erik Sandstrom=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Support standard track

 

Regards

Bengt-Erik Sandstrom

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPE-0002pd-4h; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:16 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBd8-0003ZW-L3 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:34:38 -0400 Received: from smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg ([203.120.90.31]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBd6-0006GW-S7 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:34:38 -0400 Received: (qmail 4225 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2007 07:34:33 -0000 Received: from adsl120.dyn105.pacific.net.sg (HELO Einstein2) (210.24.105.120) by smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg with SMTP; 30 Mar 2007 07:34:33 -0000 From: "Max Ng" To: "'Dutta, Pranjal \(Pranjal\)'" , "'Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)'" , , "'Bruno De Troch'" , "'Shane Amante'" , References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFC915@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550936F@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:35:31 +0800 Message-ID: <000f01c7729d$ff231670$3201a8c0@Einstein2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550936F@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQAAAImMQAAAexf8A== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:11 -0400 Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to go with informational on grounds that we focus on what has already been agreed upon and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near future decide otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. -----Original Message----- From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based method. We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling for PWE3. -Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control protocol (RFC 4447). -Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] > Sent: Thursday, Mormal>Support standard track

 

Regards

Bengt-Erik Sandstrom

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPE-0002pd-4h; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:16 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBd8-0003ZW-L3 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:34:38 -0400 Received: from smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg ([203.120.90.31]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBd6-0006GW-S7 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:34:38 -0400 Received: (qmail 4225 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2007 07:34:33 -0000 Received: from adsl120.dyn105.pacific.net.sg (HELO Einstein2) (210.24.105.120) by smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg with SMTP; 30 Mar 2007 07:34:33 -0000 From: "Max Ng" To: "'Dutta, Pranjal \(Pranjal\)'" , "'Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)'" , , "'Bruno De Troch'" , "'Shane Amante'" , References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFC915@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550936F@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:35:31 +0800 Message-ID: <000f01c7729d$ff231670$3201a8c0@Einstein2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550936F@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQAAAImMQAAAexf8A== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:11 -0400 Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to go with informational on grounds that we focus on what has already been agreed upon and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near future decide otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. -----Original Message----- From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based method. We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling for PWE3. -Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control protocol (RFC 4447). -Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] > Sent: Thursday, Mormal>Support standard track

 

Regards

Bengt-Erik Sandstrom

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPE-0002pd-4h; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:16 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBd8-0003ZW-L3 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:34:38 -0400 Received: from smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg ([203.120.90.31]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBd6-0006GW-S7 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:34:38 -0400 Received: (qmail 4225 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2007 07:34:33 -0000 Received: from adsl120.dyn105.pacific.net.sg (HELO Einstein2) (210.24.105.120) by smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg with SMTP; 30 Mar 2007 07:34:33 -0000 From: "Max Ng" To: "'Dutta, Pranjal \(Pranjal\)'" , "'Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)'" , , "'Bruno De Troch'" , "'Shane Amante'" , References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFC915@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550936F@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:35:31 +0800 Message-ID: <000f01c7729d$ff231670$3201a8c0@Einstein2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550936F@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQAAAImMQAAAexf8A== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:11 -0400 Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to go with informational on grounds that we focus on what has already been agreed upon and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near future decide otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. -----Original Message----- From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based method. We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling for PWE3. -Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control protocol (RFC 4447). -Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] > Sent: Thursday, Mormal>Support standard track

 

Regards

Bengt-Erik Sandstrom

------_=_NextPart_001_01C76FDE.A803CB3A-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 11:38:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIPE-0002pd-4h; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:16 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBd8-0003ZW-L3 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:34:38 -0400 Received: from smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg ([203.120.90.31]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HXBd6-0006GW-S7 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:34:38 -0400 Received: (qmail 4225 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2007 07:34:33 -0000 Received: from adsl120.dyn105.pacific.net.sg (HELO Einstein2) (210.24.105.120) by smtpgate1.pacific.net.sg with SMTP; 30 Mar 2007 07:34:33 -0000 From: "Max Ng" To: "'Dutta, Pranjal \(Pranjal\)'" , "'Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)'" , , "'Bruno De Troch'" , "'Shane Amante'" , References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB02FFC915@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550936F@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:35:31 +0800 Message-ID: <000f01c7729d$ff231670$3201a8c0@Einstein2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: <6D26D1FE43A66F439F8109CDD424196550936F@INEXC1U01.in.lucent.com> Thread-Index: Acdyaxk62VJrPTNkSKOoVRTehh59FwAIkVQAAAImMQAAAexf8A== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:37:11 -0400 Cc: Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org A lot has been mentioned and discussed. My preference is still to go with informational on grounds that we focus on what has already been agreed upon and rid the confusion. Should the market in the near future decide otherwise, we can progress it to Standard track. -----Original Message----- From: Dutta, Pranjal (Pranjal) [mailto:pdutta@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 PM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Completely support this. The l2vpn-sig already adopted for LDP based method. We have wide deployments for both SS-PW and MS-PW with LDP signaling for PWE3. -Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] Sent: Friday, 30 March, 2007 11:11 AM To: renweili@redback.com; Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 And the current standard-track solution is based on the PWE3 control protocol (RFC 4447). -Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: Renwei Li [mailto:renweili@redback.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:37 PM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; > l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or > informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many > deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. > > On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is > intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? > > Just some quick thoughts... > > Renwei > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the > standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling > draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a > comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. > > -Ali > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so > I prefer > > it to become a standard. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Bruno > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just > > after the > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the > room about > > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over > > our time at > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert > the room over > > for > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify > > it. So, my > > > apologies for the confusion. > > > > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How > > many people > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG > draft *if* the > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -shane > > > > arch 29, 2007 6:37 PM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; > l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or > informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many > deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. > > On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is > intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? > > Just some quick thoughts... > > Renwei > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the > standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling > draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a > comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. > > -Ali > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so > I prefer > > it to become a standard. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Bruno > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just > > after the > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the > room about > > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over > > our time at > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert > the room over > > for > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify > > it. So, my > > > apologies for the confusion. > > > > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How > > many people > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG > draft *if* the > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -shane > > > > arch 29, 2007 6:37 PM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; > l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or > informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many > deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. > > On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is > intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? > > Just some quick thoughts... > > Renwei > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the > standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling > draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a > comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. > > -Ali > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so > I prefer > > it to become a standard. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Bruno > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just > > after the > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the > room about > > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over > > our time at > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert > the room over > > for > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify > > it. So, my > > > apologies for the confusion. > > > > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How > > many people > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG > draft *if* the > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -shane > > > > arch 29, 2007 6:37 PM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); 'Bruno De Troch'; 'Shane Amante'; > l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > When we decide something to be a standard track RFC or > informational RFC, do we need to take into account how many > deployments there are? If so, I see more implementations and > deployments based on pwe3-control-protocol draft. > > On the other hand, a standard should be unique unless it is > intended to potentially obsolete the other ones. Do we intend > to obsolete other drafts using this new one? > > Just some quick thoughts... > > Renwei > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:31 PM > To: Bruno De Troch; Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > ... And I know many more networks that don't have such > deployment and some of them plan to do theirs based on the > standard-track solution specified in the l2vpn-signaling > draft. So, as I have said previously, given that we have a > comprehensive solution which is standard-track, there is no > need for another one. However, as mentioned before, I > wouldn't mind this draft to become informational RFC. > > -Ali > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruno De Troch [mailto:bdetroch@juniper.net] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:17 PM > > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > I know multiple networks where this is already deployed, so > I prefer > > it to become a standard. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Bruno > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 17:27 > > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just > > after the > > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the > room about > > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended > > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. > > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over > > our time at > > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert > the room over > > for > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify > > it. So, my > > > apologies for the confusion. > > > > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How > > many people > > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG > draft *if* the > > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -shane > > > > From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 12:15:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbJ04-0008RO-UK; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:15:20 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbJ03-0008R9-NA for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:15:19 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbJ01-0004je-Rr for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:15:19 -0400 Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Apr 2007 09:15:17 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l3AGFHk8014363; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:15:17 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l3AGF8MN029376; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:15:17 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:15:09 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C77B8B.68C7B232" Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:15:08 -0700 Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB030C45A8@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <147955311569D511AD0D00508B66753003667F77@lon-emailcl.flagtelecom.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 Thread-Index: Acd7hrwfcVM6AE5dTv+iMgTy/V0+/QAA6FEQ From: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" To: "Cheng, George" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2007 16:15:09.0524 (UTC) FILETIME=[68FA1940:01C77B8B] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=14790; t=1176221717; x=1177085717; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Subject=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 |Sender:=20; bh=5FTfjMem2NLGhOVncowjiVWWqQDTwH06Wa3fjKF6vLg=; b=naDMTAwRut7tieupo56yrf+ZFd4m/bM6Yz9noeYs9C0MDd6L2qIDMd7qzajOaN8owfZMSJjh d0CVIm4CNguaV84HdIr6rx1bjRBrltbg6D+r6Sifa6FkMUyVxGdFTvZm; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=sajassi@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73948e4d005645343fd08e813e5615ef Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C77B8B.68C7B232 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Would you enlighten us in details as to why you think this draft is technically superior to the existing standard track solution ? =20 -Ali=20 ________________________________ From: Cheng, George [mailto:GCheng@flagtelecom.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:26 AM To: 'shane@castlepoint.net' Cc: 'l2vpn@ietf.org' Subject: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 =09 =09 Hi Shane, =20 Flag Telecom has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In addition, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF following the standard track instead of ending up as informational RFC. =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D George Cheng Chief Network Architect Flag Telecom (www.flagtelecom.com) gcheng@flagtelecom.com =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 =20 I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for =20 the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my apologies for the confusion. =20 Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? =20 Thanks, =20 -shane =09 =09 =09 ********************************************************************** This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and contains information which is or may be confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose=20 the contents to any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com immediately and delete the original message and all copies from all locations in your computer systems. =09 =09 This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses. =09 ********************************************************************** =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl , a service from BlackSpider Technologies . ------_=_NextPart_001_01C77B8B.68C7B232 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Would you enlighten us in details as to why you = think this=20 draft is technically superior to the existing standard track = solution=20 ?
 
-Ali 

From: Cheng, George=20 [mailto:GCheng@flagtelecom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, = 2007 8:26=20 AM
To: 'shane@castlepoint.net'
Cc:=20 'l2vpn@ietf.org'
Subject: Subject:=20 draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Hi=20 Shane,

 

Flag Telecom has = been=20 offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using the = Kompella=20 draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. Customer = asks us=20 about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we would like to be = able to=20 say our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In addition, = I=20 believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft = technically,=20 therefore I would certainly like to see it being standardized in IETF=20 following the standard track instead of ending up as informational=20 RFC.

 

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

George=20 Cheng

Chief Network=20 Architect

Flag Telecom (www.flagtelecom.com)

gcheng@flagtelecom.com

 

 

-----Original=20 Message-----

From: Shane Amante=20 [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]

Sent: Wednesday, March = 21, 2007=20 12:27 PM

To:=20 l2vpn@ietf.org

Subject:=20 draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

 

I was approached by = several people=20 outside the hallway just after the

L2VPN WG meeting = expressing=20 confusion over a poll in the room about

making this draft a WG = document,=20 in particular over the 'Intended

Status' of this WG = draft, e.g.:=20 Informational or Standards Track.

Unfortunately, we were = abruptly=20 cut off after running over our time at

the end of the meeting, = in order=20 so they could convert the room over for

 

the IETF plenary = session, so I=20 didn't have time to clarify it.  So, = my

apologies for the=20 confusion.

 

Let me now ask a = hopefully more=20 precise question here: How many people

are in favor of making = the=20 aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the

'Intended Status' is = Standards=20 Track?

 

Thanks,

 

-shane



********************************************************= **************
This=20 e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the use of=20 the
individual or entity named above and contains information which = is or=20 may be
confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any = dissemination=20 or
distribution of this message other than to its intended = recipient=20 is
strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any = purpose=20 nor disclose
the contents to any other person. If you have = received this=20 message in error, please
notify us by email to = postmaster@flagtelecom.com=20 immediately and delete the
original message and all copies from all = locations in your computer systems.


This e-mail has been = swept by=20 Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG
Telecom cannot accept = liability=20 for any damage which you may sustain as a
result of software=20 = viruses.
*************************************************************= *********




This = message has been=20 scanned for viruses by MailControl, a service from BlackSpider Technologies.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C77B8B.68C7B232-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 12:42:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbJPO-0005uq-2q; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:41:30 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIxd-0007fU-Gb for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400 Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbIxV-00048Q-Hz for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:12:49 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: mseaton@emea.att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1176221560!6905533!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4] Received: (qmail 4800 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2007 16:12:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO attrh3i.attrh.att.com) (134.24.146.4) by server-4.tower-121.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2007 16:12:40 -0000 Received: from attrh.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3AGCdq9020497 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gbredims01.emea.att.com (gbredims01.emea.att.com [135.76.195.46]) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3AGCXcL020466 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gbredmsx03.emea.att.com ([135.76.195.54]) by gbredims01.emea.att.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:12:32 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C77B8B.0BA264AC" Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:11:16 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: VPLS networks. Thread-Index: Acd7it3Mlv8QQZNsSH+YqqiG35hn6Q== From: "Seaton, Mark" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2007 16:12:32.0554 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B6A60A0:01C77B8B] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 29dc808194f5fb921c09d0040806d6eb X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:41:28 -0400 Subject: VPLS networks. X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C77B8B.0BA264AC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I wonder if anyone from the above dist list can point me to any papers about vpls solutions over traditional layer 3 mpls solutions. With pros and cons and if VPLS is mature enough yet? =20 Many Thanks Mark Seaton Global Sales Enablement AT&T mseaton@emea.att.com Home Office +44 208-591-1075 Mobile +44 7802-461446 CCIE #4809 AT&T Global Network Services (UK) B.V. - UK Branch Registered office: Highfield House, Headless Cross Drive, Redditch, Worcestershire B97 5EQ=20 Registered in England: No. FC 21840/BR 4993 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C77B8B.0BA264AC Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I wonder if anyone from the above dist list can point = me to any papers about vpls solutions over traditional layer 3 mpls solutions. =  With pros and cons and if VPLS is mature enough = yet?

 

Many Thanks Mark Seaton Global Sales Enablement = AT&T

mseaton@emea.att.com Home Office +44 208-591-1075 Mobile +44 7802-461446 CCIE #4809

AT&T Global = Network Services (UK) B.V. - UK Branch Registered = office: Highfield House, Headless Cross Drive, Redditch, = Worcestershire B97 5EQ
Registered = in England: No. FC 21840/BR 4993

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C77B8B.0BA264AC-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 12:53:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbJa8-0003NJ-BR; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:52:36 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbJa6-0003N5-1U for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:52:34 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbJa4-0003Px-Av for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:52:34 -0400 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Apr 2007 12:52:32 -0400 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l3AGqWqq000773; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:52:32 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l3AGqRGf016662; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:52:27 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:52:27 -0400 Received: from [128.30.5.137] ([10.82.209.32]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:52:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB030C45A8@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB030C45A8@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-16-348247071 Message-Id: <944FE707-3F3D-4C27-8831-1F2407EEDCFE@cisco.com> From: Bruce Davie Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:52:22 -0400 To: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2007 16:52:26.0804 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E7FEF40:01C77B90] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=24853; t=1176223952; x=1177087952; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=bsd@cisco.com; z=From:=20Bruce=20Davie=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Subject=3A=20draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Ali=20Sajassi=20\(sajassi\)=22=20; bh=Ddb10rIKFuBK+7e6srlQgXOwVJ7FpRRJknVZwMBgKpg=; b=afVxR20nfHxlhN1iz2lAs3l9K/HVUBAkGvTznql8FnDDwvomTfioeXDesGW1zri+QgskC7mc uoXPOq6wDz/B0Oreg5bBQ4Ez/R2Qy0Um1l9qRGkqtix5kPwbd+2YWFAP; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=bsd@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 32604d42645517c44d778f1d111b40a6 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, shane@castlepoint.net, "Cheng, George" Subject: Re: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org --Apple-Mail-16-348247071 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed I think the chairs have already made it clear that we don't have consensus to move forward with this draft. Much as I enjoy the debate for its timelessness, it's not clear that this is productive. Bruce On Apr 10, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Ali Sajassi ((sajassi)) wrote: > > Would you enlighten us in details as to why you think this draft is > technically superior to the existing standard track solution ? > > -Ali > > From: Cheng, George [mailto:GCheng@flagtelecom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:26 AM > To: 'shane@castlepoint.net' > Cc: 'l2vpn@ietf.org' > Subject: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > Hi Shane, > > > > Flag Telecom has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over > 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS > system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN > implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say our > implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In addition, I > believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft > technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being > standardized in IETF following the standard track instead of ending > up as informational RFC. > > > > ============ > > George Cheng > > Chief Network Architect > > Flag Telecom (www.flagtelecom.com) > > gcheng@flagtelecom.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 > > > > I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the > > L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about > > making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended > > Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. > > Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at > > the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room > over for > > > > the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my > > apologies for the confusion. > > > > Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people > > are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the > > 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -shane > > > > ********************************************************************** > This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the > use of the > individual or entity named above and contains information which is > or may be > confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or > distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is > strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any > purpose nor disclose > the contents to any other person. If you have received this message > in error, please > notify us by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com immediately and > delete the > original message and all copies from all locations in your computer > systems. > > > This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, > FLAG > Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may > sustain as a > result of software viruses. > ********************************************************************** > > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl, a service > from BlackSpider Technologies. > > --Apple-Mail-16-348247071 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think the chairs have already = made it clear that we don't have consensus to move forward with this = draft. Much as I enjoy the debate for its timelessness, it's not clear = that this is productive.

Bruce

On Apr 10, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Ali Sajassi ((sajassi)) wrote:

=A0
=A0
-Ali
Cheng, George [mailto:GCheng@flagtelecom.com] =
Tuesday, March 27, = 2007 8:26 AM
To: 'shane@castlepoint.net'Cc:l2vpn@ietf.org'
Subject: Subject: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Hi = Shane,

=A0

Flag Telecom = has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over 5 years now using = the Kompella draft, and we have developed our OSS system supporting it. = Customer asks us about our L2VPN implementation all the time and we = would like to be able to say our implementation is an IETF standard in = the future. In addition, I believe the Kompella draft is superior that = the other draft technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it = being standardized in IETF following the standard track instead of = ending up as informational RFC.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DGeorge Cheng

Chief Network = Architect

Flag Telecom (www.flagtelecom.com)

gcheng@flagtelecom.com=A0

=A0

-----Original Message-----From: Shane Amante = [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net]Sent: Wednesday, = March 21, 2007 12:27 PM

To: l2vpn@ietf.orgSubject: = draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

=A0

I was approached by several people outside the = hallway just after the

L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a = poll in the room about

making this draft a WG document, in particular = over the 'Intended

Status' of this WG = draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.Unfortunately, we = were abruptly cut off after running over our time atthe end of the = meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for=A0

the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time = to clarify it.=A0 So, my

apologies for the confusion.=A0

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question = here: How many people

are in favor of = making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the'Intended Status' = is Standards Track?

Thanks,=A0

-shane



*******************************************************= ***************
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended = only for the use of the
individual or entity named above and contains = information which is or may be
confidential, non-public or legally = privileged. Any dissemination or
distribution of this message other = than to its intended recipient is
strictly prohibited. You should not = copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose=A0
the contents to any other = person. If you have received this message in error, please
notify us = by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com = immediately and delete the
original message and all copies from all = locations in your computer systems.


This e-mail has been = swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, FLAG
Telecom cannot = accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a
result of = software = viruses.
**************************************************************= ********




This = message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl, a service from BlackSpider Technologies


= --Apple-Mail-16-348247071-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 15:01:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbLaA-0006Nf-M3; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:00:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbLa9-0006MZ-GT for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:00:45 -0400 Received: from cat.tcb.net ([64.78.150.134] helo=dog.tcb.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbLa8-0001pp-2w for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:00:45 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFDE64357; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:00:34 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <461BDED7.6050205@castlepoint.net> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:00:39 -0600 From: Shane Amante User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Davie References: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EB030C45A8@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com> <944FE707-3F3D-4C27-8831-1F2407EEDCFE@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <944FE707-3F3D-4C27-8831-1F2407EEDCFE@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 789c141a303c09204b537a4078e2a63f Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" , "Cheng, George" Subject: Re: Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org To reiterate what has already been said, the time to weigh-in on whether this should be a WG draft on the Standards Track has expired as of last Wednesday, 4 April 2007: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/current/msg01502.html As was said at that time, there is no consensus to make this a WG draft on the Standards Track. We'll work with the authors to figure out possible next steps for this draft. -shane Bruce Davie wrote: > I think the chairs have already made it clear that we don't have > consensus to move forward with this draft. Much as I enjoy the debate > for its timelessness, it's not clear that this is productive. > > Bruce > > On Apr 10, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Ali Sajassi ((sajassi)) wrote: > >> >> Would you enlighten us in details as to why you think this draft is >> technically superior to the existing standard track solution ? >> >> -Ali >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Cheng, George [mailto:GCheng@flagtelecom.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:26 AM >> *To:* 'shane@castlepoint.net ' >> *Cc:* 'l2vpn@ietf.org ' >> *Subject:* Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >> >> Hi Shane, >> >> >> >> Flag Telecom has been offering L2VPN service to customers for over >> 5 years now using the Kompella draft, and we have developed our >> OSS system supporting it. Customer asks us about our L2VPN >> implementation all the time and we would like to be able to say >> our implementation is an IETF standard in the future. In addition, >> I believe the Kompella draft is superior that the other draft >> technically, therefore I would certainly like to see it being >> standardized in IETF following the standard track instead of >> ending up as informational RFC. >> >> >> >> ============ >> >> George Cheng >> >> Chief Network Architect >> >> Flag Telecom (www.flagtelecom.com) >> >> gcheng@flagtelecom.com >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Shane Amante [mailto:shane@castlepoint.net] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:27 PM >> >> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >> >> Subject: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02 >> >> >> >> I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the >> >> L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about >> >> making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended >> >> Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track. >> >> Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at >> >> the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room >> over for >> >> >> >> the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it. So, my >> >> apologies for the confusion. >> >> >> >> Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people >> >> are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the >> >> 'Intended Status' is Standards Track? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> -shane >> >> | >> >> ********************************************************************** >> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended only for the >> use of the >> individual or entity named above and contains information which is >> or may be >> confidential, non-public or legally privileged. Any dissemination or >> distribution of this message other than to its intended recipient is >> strictly prohibited. You should not copy it or use it for any >> purpose nor disclose >> the contents to any other person. If you have received this >> message in error, please >> notify us by email to postmaster@flagtelecom.com >> immediately and delete the >> original message and all copies from all locations in your >> computer systems. >> >> >> This e-mail has been swept by Mailsweeper TM for viruses. However, >> FLAG >> Telecom cannot accept liability for any damage which you may >> sustain as a >> result of software viruses. >> ********************************************************************** >> >> >> | >> >> This message has been scanned for viruses by MailControl >> , a service from BlackSpider >> Technologies . >> >> > From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Apr 10 15:25:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbLxh-0003CS-6U; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:25:05 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbLxg-0003CM-Bs for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:25:04 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.249]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HbLxc-0000yd-13 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:25:04 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d30so2225076and for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:24:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=kP8nDHuXF603AW8xXaQ7MCM9bRALX1eBW+Aaro9xj11dcM0qwk07e1ZN1++CgFSJ6cQ3hleZAnNqxxcVaaUoMvzUU9VKZ0Q6NztkdSzC1cWA6otOjqw4tadivw5Xv31sFwmGAF3tdLmb7c6p6yjcwn7X9Nu7Qea65EdaFl0PF7Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=UXXx4IdAPZauseVX6FnWgGgv7aMfg+R1Q8LNlUZmWTgdXe2CU86m6b/ZgyoBMVLQNtEcLR2Nbs8f/sctzp26wJjYvdu1buZGKJHYdhJs2khWdKlAeGzBC303pANq+wmUbILMBhCC6c5PexVS32+0uqJcfy0pA0sVTwrswlWDI3s= Received: by 10.100.9.19 with SMTP id 19mr5222112ani.1176233099799; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.250.9 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8c99930d0704101224k79442b82me2e5a6c5a20197cc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 15:24:59 -0400 From: "Andrew G. Malis" To: "Seaton, Mark" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_9052_665281.1176233099674" References: X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: VPLS networks. X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org ------=_Part_9052_665281.1176233099674 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Mark, For background reading, I suggest you read my paper in the Sept. 2006 issue of IEEE Communications. :-) As to whether it's mature, note that Verizon Business just went live with its nationwide VPLS service a few weeks ago, and other service providers have been offering VPLS services for quite some time. If you do a web search, you'll find a lot of articles about VPLS services, such as http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=79759 and http://www.networkcomputing.com/showitem.jhtml?docid=0402ro2 . There are countless others. Cheers, Andy On 4/10/07, Seaton, Mark wrote: > > I wonder if anyone from the above dist list can point me to any papers > about vpls solutions over traditional layer 3 mpls solutions. With pros and > cons and if VPLS is mature enough yet? > > > > Many Thanks Mark Seaton Global Sales Enablement AT&T > > mseaton@emea.att.com Home Office +44 208-591-1075 Mobile +44 7802-461446 > CCIE #4809 > > *AT&T Global Network Services (UK) B.V. - UK Branch Registered office:**Highfield House, Headless Cross Drive, Redditch, Worcestershire B97 5EQ > ** > Registered in England: No. FC 21840/BR 4993* > > > ------=_Part_9052_665281.1176233099674 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Mark,
 
For background reading, I suggest you read my paper in the Sept. 2006 issue of IEEE Communications. :-)
 
As to whether it's mature, note that Verizon Business just went live with its nationwide VPLS service a few weeks ago, and other service providers have been offering VPLS services for quite some time.  If you do a web search, you'll find a lot of articles about VPLS services, such as  http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=79759  and http://www.networkcomputing.com/showitem.jhtml?docid=0402ro2  . There are countless others.
 
Cheers,
Andy
 
On 4/10/07, Seaton, Mark <mseaton@emea.att.com> wrote:

I wonder if anyone from the above dist list can point me to any papers about vpls solutions over traditional layer 3 mpls solutions.  With pros and cons and if VPLS is mature enough yet?

 

Many Thanks Mark Seaton Global Sales Enablement AT&T

mseaton@emea.att.com Home Office +44 208-591-1075 Mobile +44 7802-461446 CCIE #4809

AT&T Global Network Services (UK) B.V. - UK Branch Registered office: Highfield House, Headless Cross Drive, Redditch, Worcestershire B97 5EQ
Registered in England: No. FC 21840/BR 4993

 


------=_Part_9052_665281.1176233099674-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Wed Apr 11 08:16:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hbbjk-0005dU-O6; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:15:44 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hbbji-0005YJ-Sr for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:15:42 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.235]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hbbha-00025U-De for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:13:33 -0400 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id z6so122483nzd for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:13:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=GPJ156AK2OlIGk3tvhrGNAVXJ0+QI0F31FDFcHxn1UBq5g57VKgrRDy3z8HjQ5r7mFS8PGzbF6Ws15CIty15Hj+HPNWq03MUP/iQilovcVSj0CSk6JfI9jAg12heou88+2ScUJP7U439l7Q5C4UM1FxO3ZP+706LP+pZd7qhk7E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=tBuifHjHvxcagKmmfDMCrMAguinJJfMlX5ghmG9bhbFsr3CTva7+As59ldj5RBxvviSSXdt+F9T02JAwZLESric7BB8RW8/ziMfJVx9Or32lFKLkcAFAwJS/IZrRnY3PaLsICwT22Vsr3u2XC9BVH4lfF43irtwyhJdwVF6gFo4= Received: by 10.114.209.1 with SMTP id h1mr238900wag.1176293607754; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.75.3 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:13:27 +1200 From: "Leon Chang" To: "Seaton, Mark" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_5962_9278633.1176293607691" References: X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: VPLS networks. X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org ------=_Part_5962_9278633.1176293607691 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline We have deployed a nationwise MPLS network in 2005 offering both VPLS and VPRN services. VPLS services is shown to be far more popular than standard VPRN. Features and stability is dependent on the PE you have, because the features offered are quite dependent on PE implementations. The technology itself is quite mature. Leon Chang ccie, Kordia Limited, New Zealand On 4/11/07, Seaton, Mark wrote: > > I wonder if anyone from the above dist list can point me to any papers > about vpls solutions over traditional layer 3 mpls solutions. With pros and > cons and if VPLS is mature enough yet? > > > > Many Thanks Mark Seaton Global Sales Enablement AT&T > > mseaton@emea.att.com Home Office +44 208-591-1075 Mobile +44 7802-461446 > CCIE #4809 > > *AT&T Global Network Services (UK) B.V. - UK Branch Registered office:**Highfield House, Headless Cross Drive, Redditch, Worcestershire B97 5EQ > ** > Registered in England: No. FC 21840/BR 4993* > > > ------=_Part_5962_9278633.1176293607691 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline We have deployed a nationwise MPLS network in 2005 offering both VPLS and VPRN services. VPLS services is shown to be far more popular than standard VPRN. Features and stability is dependent on the PE you have, because the features offered are quite dependent on PE implementations. The technology itself is quite mature.

Leon Chang
ccie, Kordia Limited, New Zealand

On 4/11/07, Seaton, Mark <mseaton@emea.att.com> wrote:

I wonder if anyone from the above dist list can point me to any papers about vpls solutions over traditional layer 3 mpls solutions.  With pros and cons and if VPLS is mature enough yet?

 

Many Thanks Mark Seaton Global Sales Enablement AT&T

mseaton@emea.att.com Home Office +44 208-591-1075 Mobile +44 7802-461446 CCIE #4809

AT&T Global Network Services (UK) B.V. - UK Branch Registered office: Highfield House, Headless Cross Drive, Redditch, Worcestershire B97 5EQ
Registered in England: No. FC 21840/BR 4993

 


------=_Part_5962_9278633.1176293607691--