From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 15 03:24:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hz6Ad-0004oo-AZ; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:24:35 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hz6Ab-0004Yr-J9 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:24:33 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.230]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hz6Aa-0006fx-Aq for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:24:33 -0400 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id z31so797861nzd for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:24:32 -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:mime-version:content-type; b=GfKpveTve01bZijLXsnHx4o9XcRADib8YUWTlBOOtXs3dHtAg/dQDVp9oh5AmU+U/qls1f4TwWA1j8kx2n9nLTLMZbaL6MAl8JT8fTG3mFKqY68L3rZtFy8GcMo6uampo2W35o3R5dE8c+2mTGLWzF+k1yXANQd1w9208PMak54= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=qJuGoAhii4AEWCMSAFRX5rMVqpzidI/GSTBbGvsDpCzR+zoAESGt7/rbamzM6pLakP2xPt3R8n+mB/gy9xsp3tAIfsuauJrBFQzF3z78qHc76ZNYfM1LHNTZ0vc9cAjnecrul7M6huzELhGagQL9by4SFWwYh1fA/LXzlpehuZ0= Received: by 10.143.162.8 with SMTP id p8mr141076wfo.1181892271770; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.29.19 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <707cb4cd0706150024kc0ad569ue8d98dd7a6a5d23e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:54:31 +0530 From: "Monika M" To: l2vpn@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_40834_29522407.1181892271756" X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Subject: Clarification in draft-nadeau-l2vpn-vpls-mib-03.txt 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_40834_29522407.1181892271756 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Explanation about the object vplsBgpVEPreference is not clear in the MIB draft. As per RFC 4761, "Two VPLS NLRIs are considered equivalent from a path selection point of view if the Route Distinguisher, the VE ID, and the VE Block Offset are the same. If two PEs are assigned the same VE ID in a given VPLS, they *MUST* use the same Route Distinguisher, and they *SHOULD*announce the same VE Block Size for a given VE Offset". Path selection is being done at the receiving peers. What is the use of configuring this in the generator PE which is multihomed (configured with same VE-ID). There is no field in VPLS NLRI to pass this info to other PEs. Without passing this information to the other PEs, it is not helpful in choosing the best NLRI out of the NLRIs generated by two PEs having same PEID. Is this carried in Local preference? Regards, Monika ------=_Part_40834_29522407.1181892271756 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Explanation about the object vplsBgpVEPreference is not clear in the MIB draft.
 
As per RFC 4761, "Two VPLS NLRIs are considered equivalent from a path selection point of view if the Route Distinguisher, the VE ID, and the VE Block Offset are the same. If two PEs are assigned the same VE ID in a given VPLS, they MUST use the same Route Distinguisher, and they SHOULD announce the same VE Block Size for a given VE Offset".
 
Path selection is being done at the receiving peers. What is the use of configuring this in the generator PE which is multihomed (configured with same VE-ID). There is no field in VPLS NLRI to pass this info to other PEs. Without passing this information to the other PEs, it is not helpful in choosing the best NLRI out of the NLRIs generated by two PEs having same PEID.
 
Is this carried in Local preference?
 
 
Regards,
Monika
 ------=_Part_40834_29522407.1181892271756-- From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jun 15 09:48:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzCA1-00051j-Vm; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:48:21 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzCA0-0004za-4Q for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:48:20 -0400 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HzC9z-0008JT-MQ for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:48:20 -0400 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Jun 2007 09:48:20 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,425,1175486400"; d="scan'208"; a="123714465:sNHT64047000" 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 l5FDmJMk027186 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:48:19 -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 l5FDmJBe006583 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:48:19 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); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:48:18 -0400 Received: from [10.83.15.50] ([10.83.15.50]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:48:18 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed To: l2vpn@ietf.org From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:48:17 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jun 2007 13:48:18.0776 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4A02580:01C7AF53] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=7430; t=1181915299; x=1182779299; 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:=20=3D?WINDOWS-1252?Q?IEEE_ComMag_Feature_Topic_on_=22Next-Gener ation_C?=3D=0A=20=3D?WINDOWS-1252?Q?arrier_Ethernet_Transport_Technologies =3D94?=3D |Sender:=20 |To:=20l2vpn@ietf.org; bh=PfocYZjhsK2e+1+hsu8ND/Sf76J4a5Gxbyw2DG6tTMo=; b=nJ6AlU4Vd73FGRhNi6+PVMWg9pJjb5amxTiqdJUQlCCP05p3pk1/wiBkYkBtwnWecZL2aosN O5gkQv7jx32KIFi9JVnZRR8AbPl38Oo9Y7MgCSjA0IHTWkszQVtxcBvz; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=tnadeau@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d2b46e3b2dfbff2088e0b72a54104985 Subject: =?windows-1252?q?IEEE_ComMag_Feature_Topic_on_=22Next-Generation?= =?windows-1252?q?_Carrier_Ethernet_Transport_Technologies=94?= 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 CALL FOR PAPERS ------------------------------ IEEE Communications Magazine Feature Topic on "Next-Generation Carrier Ethernet Transport Technologies=94 Over the last few years, the share of packet-dominated traffic has =20 grown exponentially in networks worldwide. As a result packet-based =20 transport technologies such as MPLS are increasingly deemed to be =20 more efficient for carrying this traffic compared to legacy SDH/SONET =20= technology (and its next-generation incarnations) or the more =20 familiar ATM/FR technology. A majority of this traffic is now either =20 Ethernet or Internet Protocol (IP), so enterprises (and even =20 residential customers) familiar with Ethernet technology have begun =20 demanding a simple, inexpensive and high-speed universal Ethernet =20 service. With the availability of low-cost, high-bandwidth Ethernet =20 beyond the Local Area Network, the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) has =20 defined such a service as Carrier Ethernet, and defined it as a =20 ubiquitous, standardized, carrier-class service/application =20 characterized by some key attributes: reliability, hard Quality-of-=20 Service (QoS), service management, and scalability. These features set it apart from the ubiquitously deployed LAN-based =20 Ethernet and serve as an add-on to switched Ethernet (GigE, and =20 10GigE variants). There are, however, several options for building =20 the underlying transport infrastructure to deliver such a carrier =20 Ethernet service. These include, for example, using: IP/MPLS =20 technology to deliver point-to-point Ethernet circuits joined =20 together with physical Ethernet bridges/switches; IP/MPLS with =20 Virtual-Private LAN Service (VPLS) or Hierarchical Virtual Private =20 LAN Service (H-VPLS) (developed at the IETF); Transport-MPLS (T-MPLS) =20= being proposed at the ITU-T, using modified Ethernet technology with =20 Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) and Provider-Backbone Transport =20 (PBT) being proposed at the IEEE; using a combination of a modified =20 Ethernet data-plane and a GMPLS-based control-plane with VLAN cross-=20 connect (being proposed by several vendors and under consideration at =20= the IETF) and Circuit Emulation Services (CES) over an Ethernet =20 fabric to provision Pseudo Wires (PWs). The quest, therefore, is for the most feature rich, and CAPEX/OPEX =20 efficient, packet-based transport infrastructure for next-generation =20 Carrier Ethernet services. Debate and discussion is rife in the =20 industry and the academic/research communities about which technology =20= will provide the best combination of cost, ease of use, OAM features, =20= performance and service management, ability to offer Quality-of-=20 Service (QoS) guarantees, traffic engineering, and resilience, and =20 capability to manage and bill for services running atop the transport =20= infrastructure. This special issue aims to consolidate and disseminate the latest =20 developments and advances in transport technology options for Carrier =20= Ethernet service. With this objective, the list of topics includes =20 (but will not be limited to) the following: =95 Metro Ethernet and Carrier Ethernet evolutions =96 =20 requirements, services specifications, carrier drivers, customer drivers =95 Requirements on QoS, traffic engineering, resilience, =20 manageability, OAM, and service scalability for carrier Ethernet =20 transport technologies =95 IP/MPLS (VPLS, H-VPLS) for carrier Ethernet services =96 =20= choices, pros, cons, costs/benefits =95 Provider Backbone Bridging (PBB) and Provider Backbone =20 Transport-Traffic Engineered (PBT-TE) as alternatives to IP/MPLS for =20 Ethernet transport =96 pros, cons, costs/benefits =95 Transport-MPLS for carrier Ethernet =96 pros, cons, costs/=20= benefits =95 GMPLS-based control of Ethernet networks =96 changes in = the =20 data and control planes =95 Assessment of the proposed transport solutions in terms =20= of their ability to provide QoS, traffic engineering, resilience, =20 manageability, and so on. =95 OAM, network management, service management =96 options, =20= choices, pitfalls, needs, and cost analysis and comparison of solutions. =95 Solutions that meet the perceived requirements of the =20 community that are alternatives to the ones being proposed in the =20 various standards bodies. =95 Traffic engineering and dimensioning of carrier Ethernet =20= transport networks =95 Techniques to ensure QoS, especially with a mix of =20 transport technologies in use =95 Analysis and studies of resilience and protection =20 approaches utilized by different transport architectures and =20 associated technologies =95 Studies comparing the different transport technologies =20 along multiple dimensions =96 deployment cost, day-to-day running cost, =20= features provided, ease of deployment/management, and so on =95 Comparisons and case-studies from the provider community =20= to highlight why existing technologies do not meet current and =20 evolving provider requirements. =95 Commentaries from providers who feel existing techniques/=20= choices meet their requirements or can be easily modified to meet =20 their requirements. =95 Network operators, vendors, and standards bodies=92 =20 perspectives on any of the above. =95 Implementations, test-beds and field trials related to =20 carrier Ethernet transport technologies =95 State of current standards Submission Articles should be tutorial in nature and should be written in a =20 style comprehensible to readers outside the specialty of the article. =20= Articles may be edited for clarity and grammatical accuracy, and will =20= be copyedited according to the Magazine's style. Mathematical =20 equations should not be used (in justified cases up to three simple =20 equations could be allowed, provided there is consent of the Guest =20 Editor; more than three equations require permission from the Editor-=20 in-Chief). Articles should have no more than 4,500 words, no more =20 than 6 tables/figures, and no more than 15 references. Guidelines for =20= prospective authors can be found on-line at http://www.comsoc.org/=20 pubs/commag/sub_guidelines.html. Please submit no later than 31 July =20 2007. All articles to be considered for publication must be submitted =20= through IEEE Manuscript Central (http://commag-=20 ieee.manuscriptcentral.com). Please select "March 2008/Next-=20 Generation Carrier Ethernet Transport Technologies" in the drop down =20 menu. Accepted papers will also be included in Communications =20 Interactive (CI), the online version of Communications Magazine. Manuscript Due: 1 August 2007 Acceptance Notification: 1 November 2007 Final Manuscript Due: 1 December 2007 Publication Date: March 2008 Guest Editors: Thomas D. Nadeau, Cisco Systems, Inc., (tnadeau@cisco.com) Vishal Sharma, Metanoia, Inc. (v.sharma@ieee.org) Ashwin Gumaste, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (ashwing@ieee.org) From l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jun 17 23:50:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I08GE-0002o6-62; Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:50:38 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I08GC-0002nv-QB for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:50:36 -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 1I08GB-0001ee-JZ for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:50:36 -0400 Received: from [172.16.15.25] (71-215-86-28.hlrn.qwest.net [71.215.86.28]) by dog.tcb.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7C96434C for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:50:35 -0600 (MDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: l2vpn@ietf.org From: Shane Amante Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:50:34 -0600 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Subject: IETF 69: Call for slots for Chicago 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, We have been tentatively granted a 2.5 hour meeting slot on: WEDNESDAY, July 25, 2007 0900-1130 Morning Session I Adams INT l2vpn Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks WG If anyone has items they wish to discuss, please mail Vach or I. Thanks! -shane