From nick.delregno@verizon.com Mon Jan 3 08:38:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE793A6985; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:38:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ZY8Sb9rSXbU; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:38:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ashesmtp02.verizonbusiness.com (ashesmtp02.verizonbusiness.com [198.4.8.166]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F2903A698A; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:38:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from pdcismtp03.vzbi.com ([unknown] [166.40.77.73]) by firewall.verizonbusiness.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with ESMTP id <0LEG00785GZNKLA0@firewall.verizonbusiness.com>; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:40:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pdcismtp03.vzbi.com ([unknown] [127.0.0.1]) by pdcismtp03.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with SMTP id <0LEG007E9GZN7I00@pdcismtp03.vzbi.com>; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:40:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ASHSRV142.mcilink.com ([unknown] [153.39.68.168]) by pdcismtp03.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with ESMTP id <0LEG0076RGZM8V00@pdcismtp03.vzbi.com>; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:40:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ASHEVS008.mcilink.com ([153.39.69.129]) by ASHSRV142.mcilink.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:40:35 +0000 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_01CBAB64.F1302B7F" Subject: PW / VCCV User Implementation Survey - Please Participate! Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:40:26 +0000 Message-id: <14584D6EE26B314187A4F68BA2060600061FAF51@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> In-reply-to: <14584D6EE26B314187A4F68BA206060005DB543A@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-topic: PW / VCCV User Implementation Survey - Please Participate! Thread-index: Act8YpSEMMoOD4/+SCeRBwpsUYLmAgTfklMQBuDxc0A= References: <14584D6EE26B314187A4F68BA206060005AE91E1@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> <14584D6EE26B314187A4F68BA206060005DB543A@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> From: "Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)" To: pwe3 , mpls@ietf.org, l2vpn@ietf.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2011 16:40:35.0156 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1C61140:01CBAB64] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:38:44 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBAB64.F1302B7F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Just a friendly reminder to complete (or ask your customers to complete) the PW/VCCV User Implementation Survey. =20 =20 We have 6 responses so far. =20 The deadline is February 25, 2011. =20 Thanks, Nick =20 From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno) Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:55 PM To: pwe3; mpls@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: Malis, Andrew G. (Andy) Subject: [PWE3] PW / VCCV Service Provider Implementation Survey =20 All: =20 Per the direction of the PWE3 working group, beginning in IETF77 and reinforced in IETF78, the PWE3 working group is conducting a Service Provider implementation survey related to: =20 - Pseudowire Encapsulations - Control Word Support - Control Word Use - VCCV Control Channel Support - VCCV Control Channel Use =20 http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/pwe3 =20 This is a short survey directed toward Service Providers who currently operate networks using any of the defined PWE3 encapsulations. The results of this survey will be used to determine the direction of the Control Word support in current and future encapsulations as well as solutions to VCCV interoperability challenges. =20 We sincerely urge all service providers to participate. We ask that all equipment providers encourage participation by their Service Provider customers. The more feedback we receive, the better view of the existing network we can have on which to base going-forward direction. =20 If you have any questions, regarding the survey, especially of a technical nature, please contact me. If you have non-technical questions, feel free to reach out to the PWE3 WG chairs and myself. =20 The results of the survey will be aggregated and shared at a high level. No low-level details of network implementations will be shared. All participant's responses will remain private, if not anonymous. =20 All responses will require a valid email address to help ensure the survey's validity. =20 Thanks, Nick =20 Christopher N. "Nick" DelRegno, PMTS CNT, Ethernet Network Architecture & Design 400 International Pkwy Richardson, TX 75081 Tel: 972-729-3411 Email: Nick.DelRegno@verizon.com =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBAB64.F1302B7F Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Just a friendly reminder to complete (or ask = your customers to complete) the PW/VCCV User Implementation = Survey. 

 

We have 6 responses = so far.

 

The deadline is February = 25, 2011.

 

Thanks,

Nick

 

From:= = pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)
Sent: Thursday, = November 04, 2010 3:55 PM
To: pwe3; mpls@ietf.org; = l2vpn@ietf.org
Cc: Malis, Andrew G. (Andy)
Subject: = [PWE3] PW / VCCV Service Provider Implementation = Survey

 

All:

 

Per the = direction of the PWE3 working group, beginning in IETF77 and reinforced = in IETF78, the PWE3 working group is conducting a Service Provider = implementation survey related to:

 

-          = Pseudowire Encapsulations

-          = Control Word Support

-          = Control Word Use

-          = VCCV Control Channel Support

-          = VCCV Control Channel Use

 

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s= /pwe3

 

This is a short survey directed toward Service = Providers who currently operate networks using any of the defined PWE3 = encapsulations.  The results of this survey will be used to = determine the direction of the Control Word support in current and = future encapsulations as well as solutions to VCCV interoperability = challenges.

 

We sincerely urge all service providers to = participate.  We ask that all equipment providers encourage = participation by their Service Provider customers.  The more = feedback we receive, the better view of the existing network we can have = on which to base going-forward direction.

 

If you have = any questions, regarding the survey, especially of a technical nature, = please contact me.  If you have non-technical questions, feel free = to reach out to the PWE3 WG chairs and myself.

 

The results = of the survey will be aggregated and shared at a high level.  No = low-level details of network implementations will be shared.  All = participant’s responses will remain private, if not = anonymous.

 

All responses will require a valid email address to = help ensure the survey’s validity.

 

Thanks,

Nick

 

Christopher N. “Nick” DelRegno, = PMTS

CNT, Ethernet Network Architecture & = Design

400 International Pkwy

Richardson, TX  = 75081

Tel:  972-729-3411

Email:  = Nick.DelRegno@verizon.com

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01CBAB64.F1302B7F-- From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Tue Jan 4 23:52:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0483A6B83; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:52:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.341, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bJHLcLBaOW5o; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A4E3A6A2C; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:52:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 205953314101978; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:50:20 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.19] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 68277.7391410851; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:51:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse2.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p057plgj095486; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:51:47 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: Ed Subject: Re: [mpls] Request comments for HSMP LSP MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:50:45 +0800 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-01-05 15:51:29, Serialize by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-01-05 15:51:29, Serialize complete at 2011-01-05 15:51:29, S/MIME Sign failed at 2011-01-05 15:51:29: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-01-05 15:51:33, Serialize complete at 2011-01-05 15:51:33 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002B2AB74825780F_=" X-MAIL: mse2.zte.com.cn p057plgj095486 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, Ice , N.Leymann@telekom.de, tictoc@ietf.org, frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 07:52:35 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 002B2AB74825780F_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi Edward, Thank you for the comments. I add l2vpn maillist in cc list. I agree with the application you proposed, and in order to improve the scalability of VPLS, P2MP PW multiplexed to HSMP LSP could be used for VPLS. Actually this is a good application case for P2MP PW with reverse path (section 4.4, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-00). We can add some description about this use case. Regards Lizhong Ed wrote on 2011-01-05 15:05:30: > Hi Lizhong, > > I think one possible application for HSMP LSPs is to reduce the > overall broadcast/multicast utilization on a VPLS. In current VPLS > implementations with a full mesh of P2P LSPs between PEs, broadcast, > multicast and unknown traffic are not efficiently propagated on the > physical links between PEs and Ps. > > In the VPLS implementation scenario with HSMP LSPs, each PE signals > a HSMP LSP with itself as a root to all other PEs in the VPLS. > Thereafter, all broadcast/multicast/unknown traffic from this PE > will use this HSMP LSP. Unicast traffic from a particular PE (e.g. > PE1) to another PE (e.g. PE2) will be sent from leaf to root using > the HSMP LSP where PE2 is the root. > > This simplifies the VPLS implementation by: > - Reducing traffic utilization from broadcast, multicast > and unknown traffic > - Reducing the total number of LSPs maintained by each PE > (i.e. instead of requiring a full mesh of LSPs, now only require one > HSMP LSP per PE). > > This is similar to the idea expressed in draft-key-l2vpn-etree- > frwk-03.txt (in a more general sense). > > What do you think? Would HSMP LSP be suitable for this? > > Regards, > Edward > > > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM, wrote: > > Hi all, > During IETF 79 Beijing, we made a presentation for HSMP LSP at MPLS session. > HSMP LSP has several use cases described in the draft, e.g, time > synchronization in MPLS network, IPTV scenario, or P2MP PW. It would > be appreciated if you could give more scenarios for HSMP LSP. Please > review the draft, and any comments are welcome. > > The draft link is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-jounay-mpls- > mldp-hsmp-01 > > Thank you. > Authors of draft-hsmp. > -------------------------------------------------------- > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 002B2AB74825780F_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi Edward,
Thank you for the comments. I add l2vpn maillist in cc list. I agree with the application you proposed, and in order to improve the scalability of VPLS, P2MP PW multiplexed to HSMP LSP could be used for VPLS. Actually this is a good application case for P2MP PW with reverse path (section 4.4, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-00). We can add some description about this use case.

Regards
Lizhong
 

Ed <maillist.ed@gmail.com> wrote on 2011-01-05 15:05:30:

> Hi Lizhong,
>  
> I think one possible application for HSMP LSPs is to reduce the
> overall broadcast/multicast utilization on a VPLS. In current VPLS
> implementations with a full mesh of P2P LSPs between PEs, broadcast,
> multicast and unknown traffic are not efficiently propagated on the
> physical links between PEs and Ps.
>  
> In the VPLS implementation scenario with HSMP LSPs, each PE signals
> a HSMP LSP with itself as a root to all other PEs in the VPLS.
> Thereafter, all broadcast/multicast/unknown traffic from this PE
> will use this HSMP LSP. Unicast traffic from a particular PE (e.g.
> PE1) to another PE (e.g. PE2) will be sent from leaf to root using
> the HSMP LSP where PE2 is the root.
>  
> This simplifies the VPLS implementation by:
> -          Reducing traffic utilization from broadcast, multicast
> and unknown traffic
> -          Reducing the total number of LSPs maintained by each PE
> (i.e. instead of requiring a full mesh of LSPs, now only require one
> HSMP LSP per PE).
>  
> This is similar to the idea expressed in  draft-key-l2vpn-etree-
> frwk-03.txt (in a more general sense).
>  
> What do you think? Would HSMP LSP be suitable for this?
>
> Regards,
> Edward
>  
>  
>  
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM, <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> During IETF 79 Beijing, we made a presentation for HSMP LSP at MPLS session.
> HSMP LSP has several use cases described in the draft, e.g, time
> synchronization in MPLS network, IPTV scenario, or P2MP PW. It would
> be appreciated if you could give more scenarios for HSMP LSP. Please
> review the draft, and any comments are welcome.
>
> The draft link is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-jounay-mpls-
> mldp-hsmp-01
>  
> Thank you.
> Authors of draft-hsmp.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely 
property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
> This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 002B2AB74825780F_=-- From xuxh@huawei.com Fri Jan 7 01:18:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BCF3A67F6; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 01:18:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.942 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.942 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.447, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eESYZliqpTvA; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 01:18:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4533A67C1; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 01:18:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEN0082QBA7OD@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:20:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEN004U4BA769@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:20:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEN007NEBA60U@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:20:31 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:26:18 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks To: l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuuTPBDfBVMNoPjRoq8yzBogulXxg== Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:18:53 -0000 Hi all, Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able to support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of VPN instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, BGP and LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much acceptable for some cloud data center providers. So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run between P and PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances and associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be carried in the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). Note that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE router now could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. Any comment? Best wishes, Xiaohu From vishwas@ipinfusion.com Fri Jan 7 12:51:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501AA3A6920; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:51:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z0PxFCla9qLP; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:50:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60F33A6940; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so17524779fxm.31 for ; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:53:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.73.206 with SMTP id r14mr362001faj.126.1294433585058; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.100.11 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:53:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> References: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:53:04 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks From: Vishwas Manral To: Xu Xiaohu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:58:58 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:51:03 -0000 Hi Xu, If I understand you right, you are talking about a way to use changes to IS-IS to do Inter Data Center address exchange. There is something called Overlay Transport Virtualization (OTV), which seems to do what you are suggesting. That said I know there were attempts to send addresses instead of doing L2 learning for VPLS, quite a while back. Thanks, Vishwas On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Xu Xiaohu wrote: > Hi all, > > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able to > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of VPN > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, BGP and > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > > So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those > special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run between P and > PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute > their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances and > associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be carried in > the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). Note > that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN > instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE router now > could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > > Any comment? > > Best wishes, > Xiaohu > > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > From tony.li@tony.li Fri Jan 7 14:08:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F01028C114 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:08:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FVrA2aL3VSad for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5910528C110 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:08:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from omta22.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.73]) by qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sbwl1f0021ap0As52m9dcT; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:09:37 +0000 Received: from printer-xx-c122a8.cisco.com ([171.71.139.154]) by omta22.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sm951f00D3L3nXv3im9BD3; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:09:32 +0000 Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 14:09:04 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7E2EEBF3-9E79-4FE0-9D2C-6A862A508DA8@tony.li> References: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> To: Xu Xiaohu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:23:19 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:08:36 -0000 Hi Xiaohu, > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be = able to > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of = VPN > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the = data > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, = BGP and > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. It seems like moving the complexity from BGP or LDP into IS-IS isn't = going to make it go away. In fact, if anything, it would seem like this = makes it even more complicated. Isn't this a job for TRILL and Q-in-Q? Regards, Tony From bedard.phil@gmail.com Fri Jan 7 17:11:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEDF3A69AD; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:11:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.679 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.920, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hlj0z+5yS0qj; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:11:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B03903A69C3; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:10:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so8306843gxk.31 for ; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:13:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:user-agent:date:subject:from :to:cc:message-id:thread-topic:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=A63dmdH0jbmxGAxpAL0w9oSy5ZYLgT4AKMqxUtQXqHY=; b=iAzPqJrhBKn8WRpV+CvvtUejLNaxyrPwPZMZYcQqKC3Y/dY8TcnISMlcw0OhPIHmxG OZtKFlbsL4+HZNMn9vcG9ne1/LzsLcjvoMP0/BpFmg3fILhusPERe8i2wCnivTXZSXKk 8HvOuYXBATbgLF+XxcsnHBl0qiE1E9coWMbWs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Ec1JPkOz6IzOcrDNeWjxkruMHe5F+hCfrr5TD33ofabKRtT2Dfbs3ivFzXqWd3ddbO gvLvctglbJRVHIFsHpSzM/PYRuqVhKw7phPDvSscuqkyrDQY9M1ILIRJ3nu9DWEAm5py 7raPA2Ya4Kw8B7djet4xJg0tfNDpBCOst228I= Received: by 10.151.153.13 with SMTP id f13mr25565260ybo.223.1294449182626; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:13:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.109] (66-168-186-77.dhcp.gwnt.ga.charter.com [66.168.186.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b7sm3409143ybn.11.2011.01.07.17.12.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:13:01 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.1.0.101012 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:12:51 -0500 Subject: Re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks From: Phil Bedard To: Xu Xiaohu , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-Reply-To: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 01:11:10 -0000 If one wishes to stay at L2, 802.1aq uses the PBB/802.1ah I-SID value to differentiate instances, as opposed to an MPLS label, and distributes this information via IS-IS. The B-MAC of the source bridge is similar to an IP address in abstracting all service instances behind a single identifier, so the concept is similar. TRILL may provide the same benefits. If one is using VPLS (L3), I'm not going to say the idea has no merit because running a single protocol on the network may be attractive to some providers as opposed to running an IGP plus BGP/LDP. Using IP encapsulation instead of MPLS has been implemented by some vendors, but with an outer encapsulation header like GRE or L2TPv3. The downside to using the IGP to distribute VPN information is the P core is exposed to all of the VPN information unnecessarily. Also there are some VPLS drafts which use BGP to distribute MAC information as well, which may be beneficial as opposed to using L2 learning methods. -Phil On 1/7/11 4:26 AM, "Xu Xiaohu" wrote: >Hi all, > >Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able >to >support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth >capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of VPN >instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data >centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, BGP >and >LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much >acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > >So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those >special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run between P >and >PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute >their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances and >associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be carried in >the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). >Note >that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN >instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a >particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE router >now >could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the >received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > >Any comment? > >Best wishes, >Xiaohu > > From xuxh@huawei.com Sat Jan 8 01:33:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D403A69B3; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 01:33:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.294 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G6m9bvfZgd3E; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 01:33:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59AC43A67A6; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 01:33:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEP00JXO6N7FF@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:35:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEP00MCM6N7FD@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:35:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from [172.24.1.6] (Forwarded-For: [123.113.123.32]) by szxmc04-in.huawei.com (mshttpd); Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:35:31 +0800 Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:35:31 +0800 From: xuxiaohu 41208 Subject: re:Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <7E2EEBF3-9E79-4FE0-9D2C-6A862A508DA8@tony.li> To: Tony Li Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006) Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: zh-CN Priority: normal References: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> <7E2EEBF3-9E79-4FE0-9D2C-6A862A508DA8@tony.li> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:33:37 -0000 ----- =D4=AD=D3=CA=BC=FE ----- =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB=3A Tony Li =3Ctony=2Eli=40tony=2Eli=3E =C8=D5=C6=DA=3A =D0=C7=C6=DA=C1=F9=2C =D2=BB=D4=C2 8=C8=D5=2C 2011 =C9=CF= =CE=E76=3A09 =D6=F7=CC=E2=3A Re=3A =5BIsis-wg=5D IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data cente= r networks =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB=3A Xu Xiaohu =3Cxuxh=40huawei=2Ecom=3E =B3=AD=CB=CD=3A l2vpn=40ietf=2Eorg=2C isis-wg=40ietf=2Eorg =3E = =3E Hi Xiaohu=2C =3E = =3E = =3E =3E Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not = =3E only be able to =3E =3E support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the = =3E bandwidth=3E capacity between servers=2C but also be able to provide = a = =3E huge amount of VPN =3E =3E instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within = =3E the data =3E =3E centers=2E VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement=2E = =3E However=2C BGP and =3E =3E LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not mu= ch =3E =3E acceptable for some cloud data center providers=2E =3E = =3E = =3E It seems like moving the complexity from BGP or LDP into IS-IS = =3E isn=27t going to make it go away=2E In fact=2C if anything=2C it wou= ld = =3E seem like this makes it even more complicated=2E =3E = =3E Isn=27t this a job for TRILL and Q-in-Q=3F Hi Tony=2C TRILL and SPB not only invent brand-new mechanisms for shortest path forw= arding between PE routers (i=2Ee=2E=2C Rbridges and SPB device)=2C but al= so specify VPN membership discovery mechanism=2E In contrast=2C IS-IS bas= ed VPLS is just aimed to provide a light-weight option of VPLS=2E it only= needs an extended ISIS TLV for PE routers to advertise their own VPLS me= mbership=2E There is no need to introduce totally new packet encapsulatio= n formats and packet f orwarding mechanism on the data plane or complex ECMP routing computation= on the control plane=2E Best regards=2C Xiaohu = =3E Regards=2C =3E Tony =3E = =3E define From lamberto.sterling@gmail.com Sat Jan 8 08:17:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175F128C15D; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 08:17:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ade8vFNuEYDu; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 08:17:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F6A28C12F; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 08:17:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-bw0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 12so17996019bwz.31 for ; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 08:19:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nNTLDKsCY60mvWe8iOKe6vpGtFWI7JNpuZ0M8VgWtfk=; b=l6UwYNF3eFnwLLLSqvMIsocjsyhplojA1IAb6E94blboZdx2KPNRwlCidpN+H+qQOW GUSWRN+CAjKECAIrfuJpJR3QHys/sIfjzVSk8UXOuxXxAI2on8ZhrtiK547MQXe154J5 qTVJ2MUwQXWJUH9Rj3599I677ncwdR6499r2k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=W6OvOfLzmWw3IYW/bLCcfUAVD2UgW8BEm82WilG7q5c/s9+46oSHnxgZf9Q36Xrjyj PpBjXwTL87G+MqPqfZPA8q6IF++o/k/lC/qROc+zoYUMd+Yig2L1CisGGJVA7lMLedsW Mgb2FueGLqYO8mZgIBT9xBH4b/JlC8Kc7ywCA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.52.134 with SMTP id i6mr20080302bkg.36.1294503579241; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 08:19:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.98.204 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 08:19:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 00:19:39 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: mpls Digest, Vol 81, Issue 4 From: Lamberto Sterling To: maillist.ed@gmail.com, lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5bfdd004dd00499581a94 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, Ice , tictoc@ietf.org, N.Leymann@telekom.de X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 16:17:36 -0000 --001636c5bfdd004dd00499581a94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Lizhong, Edward, It seems that it is a good idea to apply HSMP LSP to VPLS, and the broadcast/unicast/unknow packet would be optimized. However, the path from leaf to root may not be the best path compared with current VPLS using P2P LSP, which is not a critical issue. Thanks Lamberto > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:50:45 +0800 > From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn > Subject: Re: [mpls] Request comments for HSMP LSP > To: Ed > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, Ice , > N.Leymann@telekom.de, tictoc@ietf.org > Message-ID: > < > OF4BA0BF75.A883E04C-ON4825780F.002802E4-4825780F.002B2AB9@zte.com.cn> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Edward, > Thank you for the comments. I add l2vpn maillist in cc list. I agree with > the application you proposed, and in order to improve the scalability of > VPLS, P2MP PW multiplexed to HSMP LSP could be used for VPLS. Actually > this is a good application case for P2MP PW with reverse path (section > 4.4, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-00). We can add some description about this > use case. > > Regards > Lizhong > > > Ed wrote on 2011-01-05 15:05:30: > > > Hi Lizhong, > > > > I think one possible application for HSMP LSPs is to reduce the > > overall broadcast/multicast utilization on a VPLS. In current VPLS > > implementations with a full mesh of P2P LSPs between PEs, broadcast, > > multicast and unknown traffic are not efficiently propagated on the > > physical links between PEs and Ps. > > > > In the VPLS implementation scenario with HSMP LSPs, each PE signals > > a HSMP LSP with itself as a root to all other PEs in the VPLS. > > Thereafter, all broadcast/multicast/unknown traffic from this PE > > will use this HSMP LSP. Unicast traffic from a particular PE (e.g. > > PE1) to another PE (e.g. PE2) will be sent from leaf to root using > > the HSMP LSP where PE2 is the root. > > > > This simplifies the VPLS implementation by: > > - Reducing traffic utilization from broadcast, multicast > > and unknown traffic > > - Reducing the total number of LSPs maintained by each PE > > (i.e. instead of requiring a full mesh of LSPs, now only require one > > HSMP LSP per PE). > > > > This is similar to the idea expressed in draft-key-l2vpn-etree- > > frwk-03.txt (in a more general sense). > > > > What do you think? Would HSMP LSP be suitable for this? > > > > Regards, > > Edward > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM, wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > During IETF 79 Beijing, we made a presentation for HSMP LSP at MPLS > session. > > HSMP LSP has several use cases described in the draft, e.g, time > > synchronization in MPLS network, IPTV scenario, or P2MP PW. It would > > be appreciated if you could give more scenarios for HSMP LSP. Please > > review the draft, and any comments are welcome. > > > > The draft link is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-jounay-mpls- > > mldp-hsmp-01 > > > > Thank you. > > Authors of draft-hsmp. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > --001636c5bfdd004dd00499581a94 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Lizhong, Edward,
It seems that it is a good idea to apply HSMP LSP to VPLS, and the bro= adcast/unicast/unknow packet would be optimized.=A0However, the path from l= eaf to root may not be the best path compared with current VPLS using P2P L= SP, which is not a critical issue.
=A0
Thanks
Lamberto

=A0

----------------------------= --

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:50:45 +0800
From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: [mpls] Request comments for HSMP LSP
To: Ed <maillist.ed@gmail.com>
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, Ice <ice@cisco.= com>,
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0N.Leymann@telekom.de= , =A0 tictoc@ietf.org
Message= -ID:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0<OF4BA0BF75.A883E04C-ON4825780F.0028= 02E4-4825780F.002B2AB9@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"

Hi Edward,<= br>Thank you for the comments. I add l2vpn maillist in cc list. I agree wit= h
the application you proposed, and in order to improve the scalability = of
VPLS, P2MP PW multiplexed to HSMP LSP could be used for VPLS. Actually
t= his is a good application case for P2MP PW with reverse path (section
4.= 4, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-00). We can add some description about this
use case.

Regards
Lizhong


Ed <maillist.ed@gmail.com> wrote on 2011-01-05 15:05= :30:

> Hi Lizhong,
>
> I think one possible applicati= on for HSMP LSPs is to reduce the
> overall broadcast/multicast utilization on a VPLS. In current VPLS
= > implementations with a full mesh of P2P LSPs between PEs, broadcast,> multicast and unknown traffic are not efficiently propagated on the<= br> > physical links between PEs and Ps.
>
> In the VPLS impleme= ntation scenario with HSMP LSPs, each PE signals
> a HSMP LSP with it= self as a root to all other PEs in the VPLS.
> Thereafter, all broadc= ast/multicast/unknown traffic from this PE
> will use this HSMP LSP. Unicast traffic from a particular PE (e.g.
= > PE1) to another PE (e.g. PE2) will be sent from leaf to root using
= > the HSMP LSP where PE2 is the root.
>
> This simplifies th= e VPLS implementation by:
> - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Reducing traffic utilization from broadcast, mult= icast
> and unknown traffic
> - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Reducing the= total number of LSPs maintained by each PE
> (i.e. instead of requir= ing a full mesh of LSPs, now only require one
> HSMP LSP per PE).
>
> This is similar to the idea expresse= d in =A0draft-key-l2vpn-etree-
> frwk-03.txt (in a more general sense= ).
>
> What do you think? Would HSMP LSP be suitable for this?<= br> >
> Regards,
> Edward
>
>
>
> On Wed= , Jan 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM, <liz= hong.jin@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> During I= ETF 79 Beijing, we made a presentation for HSMP LSP at MPLS
session.
> HSMP LSP has several use cases described in the draft, e.g= , time
> synchronization in MPLS network, IPTV scenario, or P2MP PW. = It would
> be appreciated if you could give more scenarios for HSMP L= SP. Please
> review the draft, and any comments are welcome.
>
> The dr= aft link is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-jounay-mpls-
> mldp-hsmp-01
>
> Thank you.
> Authors of draft-hsmp.=
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
--001636c5bfdd004dd00499581a94-- From lamberto.sterling@gmail.com Sat Jan 8 17:48:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58F428C15D; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 17:48:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.348 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7x6leYb-F+Y3; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 17:48:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEC528C0D8; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 17:48:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so18199798bwz.31 for ; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:50:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ob5OHdIsb9uPtEvDPOOL3plPHbURByl61wsfe0Sc+bE=; b=TNlC2LWNEMHsAm5x0kQmiE4tEZDOSOwm+XYnObvr7oXld9dNAjbUzeImf3+wBsru8O ZzOuU5jJ4xOYHbCzFULBILtJ6MaZDgwjLegDa5g62pVSrnAb1RrhoascUa05kzbO5gBF OOFe/ysAwqpmJjQxwzNSQiTtUj0KG7JazKaeY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=AKLqyLvtRexiOv8+JCsHAyTGx4KnIZm+6DQUXHgxov1n9bSldFrTsBe8rzhSHuAul7 w1tUyECrjT4LM958iqdRnSpmyBOGG6vmzPePpPK1EuPOqdyYZHAww1jMjhB6fN720WgH 66XgGIrCRL0QQclk4wlAM5b9OWNP/NnsPrZmE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.100.136 with SMTP id y8mr20327205bkn.171.1294537816129; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 17:50:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.98.204 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Jan 2011 17:50:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 02:50:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [mpls] Request comments for HSMP LSP From: Lamberto Sterling To: maillist.ed@gmail.com, lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f6d050adc09f0499601258 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, Ice , tictoc@ietf.org, N.Leymann@telekom.de X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:48:11 -0000 --001485f6d050adc09f0499601258 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi guys, Sorry for the email subject. Change it now. Lamberto On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Lamberto Sterling < lamberto.sterling@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Lizhong, Edward, > It seems that it is a good idea to apply HSMP LSP to VPLS, and the > broadcast/unicast/unknow packet would be optimized. However, the path from > leaf to root may not be the best path compared with current VPLS using P2P > LSP, which is not a critical issue. > > Thanks > Lamberto > > > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:50:45 +0800 >> From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn >> Subject: Re: [mpls] Request comments for HSMP LSP >> To: Ed >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, Ice , >> N.Leymann@telekom.de, tictoc@ietf.org >> Message-ID: >> < >> OF4BA0BF75.A883E04C-ON4825780F.002802E4-4825780F.002B2AB9@zte.com.cn> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> Hi Edward, >> Thank you for the comments. I add l2vpn maillist in cc list. I agree with >> the application you proposed, and in order to improve the scalability of >> VPLS, P2MP PW multiplexed to HSMP LSP could be used for VPLS. Actually >> this is a good application case for P2MP PW with reverse path (section >> 4.4, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-00). We can add some description about this >> use case. >> >> Regards >> Lizhong >> >> >> Ed wrote on 2011-01-05 15:05:30: >> >> > Hi Lizhong, >> > >> > I think one possible application for HSMP LSPs is to reduce the >> > overall broadcast/multicast utilization on a VPLS. In current VPLS >> > implementations with a full mesh of P2P LSPs between PEs, broadcast, >> > multicast and unknown traffic are not efficiently propagated on the >> > physical links between PEs and Ps. >> > >> > In the VPLS implementation scenario with HSMP LSPs, each PE signals >> > a HSMP LSP with itself as a root to all other PEs in the VPLS. >> > Thereafter, all broadcast/multicast/unknown traffic from this PE >> > will use this HSMP LSP. Unicast traffic from a particular PE (e.g. >> > PE1) to another PE (e.g. PE2) will be sent from leaf to root using >> > the HSMP LSP where PE2 is the root. >> > >> > This simplifies the VPLS implementation by: >> > - Reducing traffic utilization from broadcast, multicast >> > and unknown traffic >> > - Reducing the total number of LSPs maintained by each PE >> > (i.e. instead of requiring a full mesh of LSPs, now only require one >> > HSMP LSP per PE). >> > >> > This is similar to the idea expressed in draft-key-l2vpn-etree- >> > frwk-03.txt (in a more general sense). >> > >> > What do you think? Would HSMP LSP be suitable for this? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Edward >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM, wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > During IETF 79 Beijing, we made a presentation for HSMP LSP at MPLS >> session. >> > HSMP LSP has several use cases described in the draft, e.g, time >> > synchronization in MPLS network, IPTV scenario, or P2MP PW. It would >> > be appreciated if you could give more scenarios for HSMP LSP. Please >> > review the draft, and any comments are welcome. >> > >> > The draft link is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-jounay-mpls- >> > mldp-hsmp-01 >> > >> > Thank you. >> > Authors of draft-hsmp. >> > -------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > --001485f6d050adc09f0499601258 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi guys,
Sorry for the email subject. Change it now.
=A0
Lamberto

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Lamberto Sterlin= g <lamb= erto.sterling@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Lizhong, Edward,
It seems that it is a good idea to apply HSMP LSP to VPLS, and the bro= adcast/unicast/unknow packet would be optimized.=A0However, the path from l= eaf to root may not be the best path compared with current VPLS using P2P L= SP, which is not a critical issue.
=A0
Thanks
Lamberto

=A0

----------------------------= --=20


Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:50:45 +0800
From: lizhong.jin@zte.co= m.cn
Subject: Re: [mpls] Request comments for HSMP LSP
To: Ed <= ;maillist.ed@gma= il.com>
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org,= mpls@ietf.org, Ice = <ice@cisco.com>= ;,
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0N.Leymann@telekom.de, =A0 tictoc@ietf.org
Message-ID:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0<OF4BA0BF75= .A883E04C-ON4825780F.002802E4-4825780F.002B2AB9@zte.com.cn>
Conte= nt-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii"

Hi Edward,
Thank you for the comments. I add l2vpn maillist in cc li= st. I agree with
the application you proposed, and in order to improve t= he scalability of
VPLS, P2MP PW multiplexed to HSMP LSP could be used fo= r VPLS. Actually
this is a good application case for P2MP PW with reverse path (section
4= .4, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-00). We can add some description about this
= use case.

Regards
Lizhong


Ed <maillist.ed@gmail.com> wrote o= n 2011-01-05 15:05:30:

> Hi Lizhong,
>
> I think one possible application for H= SMP LSPs is to reduce the
> overall broadcast/multicast utilization o= n a VPLS. In current VPLS
> implementations with a full mesh of P2P L= SPs between PEs, broadcast,
> multicast and unknown traffic are not efficiently propagated on the> physical links between PEs and Ps.
>
> In the VPLS implem= entation scenario with HSMP LSPs, each PE signals
> a HSMP LSP with i= tself as a root to all other PEs in the VPLS.
> Thereafter, all broadcast/multicast/unknown traffic from this PE
&g= t; will use this HSMP LSP. Unicast traffic from a particular PE (e.g.
&g= t; PE1) to another PE (e.g. PE2) will be sent from leaf to root using
> the HSMP LSP where PE2 is the root.
>
> This simplifies th= e VPLS implementation by:
> - =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Reducing traffic uti= lization from broadcast, multicast
> and unknown traffic
> - = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Reducing the total number of LSPs maintained by each PE<= br> > (i.e. instead of requiring a full mesh of LSPs, now only require one> HSMP LSP per PE).
>
> This is similar to the idea expres= sed in =A0draft-key-l2vpn-etree-
> frwk-03.txt (in a more general sen= se).
>
> What do you think? Would HSMP LSP be suitable for this?
>= ;
> Regards,
> Edward
>
>
>
> On Wed, J= an 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM, <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> During IETF 79 Beijing, we made a presentation= for HSMP LSP at MPLS
session.
> HSMP LSP has several use cases de= scribed in the draft, e.g, time
> synchronization in MPLS network, IP= TV scenario, or P2MP PW. It would
> be appreciated if you could give more scenarios for HSMP LSP. Please> review the draft, and any comments are welcome.
>
> The = draft link is: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-jounay-mpls- > mldp-hsmp-01
>
> Thank you.
> Authors of draft-hsmp.=
> --------------------------------------------------------
>

--001485f6d050adc09f0499601258-- From paul@unbehagen.net Sun Jan 9 10:42:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325D43A682F; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:42:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FvOfyVc0bKgi; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:42:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E8A3A67DF; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:42:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by iyi42 with SMTP id 42so18751091iyi.31 for ; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:45:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.167.66 with SMTP id r2mr3343598icy.207.1294598702300; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.40.96.254] ([166.205.139.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d21sm25443272ibg.15.2011.01.09.10.44.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:45:00 -0800 (PST) References: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> <7E2EEBF3-9E79-4FE0-9D2C-6A862A508DA8@tony.li> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8C148) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Message-Id: <1CC6FCF6-AD70-4E02-ACAD-94665DF9342E@unbehagen.net> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8C148) From: Paul Unbehagen Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 08:44:55 -1000 To: xuxiaohu 41208 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , Tony Li , "isis-wg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 18:42:53 -0000 Hi Xiaohu, To be clear, since SPB is a IEEE protocol it doesn't invent new encapsulatio= ns, it simply takes control of forwarding the native Ethernet encaps (PBB & Q= ) with IS-IS. The ISID is used like a VPN ID to know where endpoints are in t= he network and pre-populate the fibs. The same FIBs that would be created in= a traditional Ethernet environment, but without and reverse learning or flo= oding needed. This also allows years of deployed Ethernet OAM to just work w= ithout need for modification. Unless I've misunderstood your intention, with both PBB/VPLS and SPB you can= solve everything you are mentioning without inventing something new to do t= he same thing. PE's can do what they've always done and DC switches can be b= etter at what they've always done and the two can work natively together to c= onnect DC's together from TOR to TOR. -- Paul Unbehagen On Jan 7, 2011, at 11:35 PM, xuxiaohu 41208 wrote: >=20 >=20 > ----- =E5=8E=9F=E9=82=AE=E4=BB=B6 ----- > =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Tony Li > =E6=97=A5=E6=9C=9F: =E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E5=85=AD, =E4=B8=80=E6=9C=88 8=E6=97= =A5, 2011 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=886:09 > =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center n= etworks > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Xu Xiaohu > =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: l2vpn@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org >=20 >>=20 >> Hi Xiaohu, >>=20 >>=20 >>> Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not=20 >> only be able to >>> support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the=20 >> bandwidth> capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a=20 >> huge amount of VPN >>> instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within=20 >> the data >>> centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement.=20 >> However, BGP and >>> LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much >>> acceptable for some cloud data center providers. >>=20 >>=20 >> It seems like moving the complexity from BGP or LDP into IS-IS=20 >> isn't going to make it go away. In fact, if anything, it would=20 >> seem like this makes it even more complicated. >>=20 >> Isn't this a job for TRILL and Q-in-Q? >=20 > Hi Tony, >=20 > TRILL and SPB not only invent brand-new mechanisms for shortest path forwa= rding between PE routers (i.e., Rbridges and SPB device), but also specify V= PN membership discovery mechanism. In contrast, IS-IS based VPLS is just aim= ed to provide a light-weight option of VPLS. it only needs an extended ISIS T= LV for PE routers to advertise their own VPLS membership. There is no need t= o introduce totally new packet encapsulation formats and packet f > orwarding mechanism on the data plane or complex ECMP routing computation o= n the control plane. >=20 > Best regards, > Xiaohu >=20 >> Regards, >> Tony >>=20 >> define=20 From xuxh@huawei.com Sun Jan 9 17:44:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE7228C0E7; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:44:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.193, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aq0ik5tvK87y; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2A728C0D7; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES00A4AA9WQ7@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:46:45 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES002FRA9WLF@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:46:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LES00LNHA9WCR@szxml06-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:46:44 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:52:37 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: To: 'Phil Bedard' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <001601cbb069$0ecf4370$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: Acuu0UBHs43BnVxPT/2ITYrJcVXo7wBkqr0g Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:44:46 -0000 Hi Phil, > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Phil Bedard [mailto:bedard.phil@gmail.com] > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C28=C8=D5 9:13 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xu Xiaohu; l2vpn@ietf.org > =B3=AD=CB=CD: isis-wg@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks >=20 > If one wishes to stay at L2, 802.1aq uses the PBB/802.1ah I-SID value = to > differentiate instances, as opposed to an MPLS label, and distributes = this > information via IS-IS. The B-MAC of the source bridge is similar to = an IP > address in abstracting all service instances behind a single = identifier, > so the concept is similar. TRILL may provide the same benefits. Agree. However, for shortest path routing/forwarding, neither of the = above two options is more mature and more familiar to operators than IP. > If one is using VPLS (L3), I'm not going to say the idea has no merit > because running a single protocol on the network may be attractive to = some > providers as opposed to running an IGP plus BGP/LDP. Using IP Agree. That's the reason why I proposed IS-IS based VPLS :) > encapsulation instead of MPLS has been implemented by some vendors, = but > with an outer encapsulation header like GRE or L2TPv3. The downside = to Fully agree. > using the IGP to distribute VPN information is the P core is exposed = to > all of the VPN information unnecessarily. Also there are some VPLS = drafts Agree. IMHO, this should be an affordable cost of achieving the configuration simplicity. In addition, the extended IS-IS TLV for VPN membership could be partially transparent to P routers since the P = routers don't need to process VPN reachability information contained in that = TLV.=20 By the way, in TRILL and SPB (802.1aq) cases, the VPN membership = information is also exposed to core devices. > which use BGP to distribute MAC information as well, which may be > beneficial as opposed to using L2 learning methods. If the CE MAC reachability information is desired to be distributed = across PE routers on the control plane, such information should be fully transparent to P routers as if the packets containing that information = are normal data packets. Best wishes, Xiaohu=20 > -Phil >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 1/7/11 4:26 AM, "Xu Xiaohu" wrote: >=20 > >Hi all, > > > >Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be = able > >to > >support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the = bandwidth > >capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount = of VPN > >instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the = data > >centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, = BGP > >and > >LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > >acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > > > >So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those > >special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run = between P > >and > >PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to = distribute > >their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances = and > >associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be = carried in > >the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., = MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). > >Note > >that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN > >instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > >particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE = router > >now > >could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > >received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > > > >Any comment? > > > >Best wishes, > >Xiaohu > > > > From xuxh@huawei.com Sun Jan 9 18:11:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE36828C0E3; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 18:11:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.355, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gVjpGbn43H5x; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 18:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F4A28C0E1; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 18:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES00GWYBIN8Q@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:13:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES00JSXBINU8@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:13:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LES00K38BIMO1@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:13:35 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:19:27 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <1CC6FCF6-AD70-4E02-ACAD-94665DF9342E@unbehagen.net> To: 'Paul Unbehagen' Message-id: <001a01cbb06c$ce828d50$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcuwLVZqj9v2kgx8QbOhHcCh7nMXlAAO8L8g Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, 'Tony Li' , isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:11:35 -0000 Hi Paul, > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Paul Unbehagen [mailto:paul@unbehagen.net] > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C210=C8=D5 2:45 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: xuxiaohu 41208 > =B3=AD=CB=CD: Tony Li; l2vpn@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center = networks >=20 > Hi Xiaohu, >=20 > To be clear, since SPB is a IEEE protocol it doesn't invent new encapsulations, > it simply takes control of forwarding the native Ethernet encaps (PBB = & Q) with > IS-IS. The ISID is used like a VPN ID to know where endpoints are in = the network > and pre-populate the fibs. The same FIBs that would be created in a traditional > Ethernet environment, but without and reverse learning or flooding = needed. This > also allows years of deployed Ethernet OAM to just work without need = for > modification. Yes, I agree that the data plane of SPB is good. However, the control = plane is a bit complex (e.g., the TE-alike ECMP function). > Unless I've misunderstood your intention, with both PBB/VPLS and SPB = you can > solve everything you are mentioning without inventing something new to = do the > same thing. =20 Yes, IS-IS based VPLS aims to perform the same function, but it is a light-weight option. Best wishes, Xiaohu > PE's can do what they've always done and DC switches can be better > at what they've always done and the two can work natively together to connect > DC's together from TOR to TOR. >=20 > -- > Paul Unbehagen >=20 >=20 > On Jan 7, 2011, at 11:35 PM, xuxiaohu 41208 wrote: >=20 > > > > > > ----- =D4=AD=D3=CA=BC=FE ----- > > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Tony Li > > =C8=D5=C6=DA: =D0=C7=C6=DA=C1=F9, =D2=BB=D4=C2 8=C8=D5, 2011 = =C9=CF=CE=E76:09 > > =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center = networks > > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xu Xiaohu > > =B3=AD=CB=CD: l2vpn@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org > > > >> > >> Hi Xiaohu, > >> > >> > >>> Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not > >> only be able to > >>> support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the > >> bandwidth> capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a > >> huge amount of VPN > >>> instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within > >> the data > >>> centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. > >> However, BGP and > >>> LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not = much > >>> acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > >> > >> > >> It seems like moving the complexity from BGP or LDP into IS-IS > >> isn't going to make it go away. In fact, if anything, it would > >> seem like this makes it even more complicated. > >> > >> Isn't this a job for TRILL and Q-in-Q? > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > TRILL and SPB not only invent brand-new mechanisms for shortest path > forwarding between PE routers (i.e., Rbridges and SPB device), but = also specify > VPN membership discovery mechanism. In contrast, IS-IS based VPLS is = just aimed > to provide a light-weight option of VPLS. it only needs an extended = ISIS TLV > for PE routers to advertise their own VPLS membership. There is no = need to > introduce totally new packet encapsulation formats and packet f > > orwarding mechanism on the data plane or complex ECMP routing computation > on the control plane. > > > > Best regards, > > Xiaohu > > > >> Regards, > >> Tony > >> > >> define From xuxh@huawei.com Sun Jan 9 18:22:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B546B28C0E4; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 18:22:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.422 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.284, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJ6JPBrU0ppO; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 18:22:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71CE28C0E3; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 18:22:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES00LG9C0LTY@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:24:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES00JAJC0LU8@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:24:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LES00FZQC0LG6@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:24:21 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:30:13 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <7E2EEBF3-9E79-4FE0-9D2C-6A862A508DA8@tony.li> To: 'Tony Li' Message-id: <001b01cbb06e$4fe68670$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: Acuut5RFyg9a6zMATbCf2L7SsS3TfABtj6Gw Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:22:20 -0000 > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Tony Li [mailto:tony.li@tony.li] > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C28=C8=D5 6:09 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xu Xiaohu > =B3=AD=CB=CD: l2vpn@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center = networks >=20 >=20 > Hi Xiaohu, >=20 >=20 > > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able > to > > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the = bandwidth > > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount = of VPN > > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data > > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, = BGP and > > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. >=20 >=20 > It seems like moving the complexity from BGP or LDP into IS-IS isn't = going to > make it go away. In fact, if anything, it would seem like this makes = it even > more complicated. >=20 > Isn't this a job for TRILL and Q-in-Q? Hi Tony, Did you mean that TRILL should scale its VPN instance amount by using Q-in-Q? Best wishes, Xiaohu > Regards, > Tony From xuxh@huawei.com Sun Jan 9 19:13:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E81728C0D9; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:13:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.864 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.864 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.631, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Eduryt1imsL; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:13:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243513A686E; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:13:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES00JJ7ECC5M@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:14:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES00AYVECCL3@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:14:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LES00HOUECC10@szxml06-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:14:36 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:20:29 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <001d01cbb072$0fb65900$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> To: 'Vishwas Manral' Message-id: <001e01cbb075$55095bd0$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: Acuwcg91RuLXyg3ESoy9+B/9MkkdmQAACxGA Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 03:13:17 -0000 Hi Vishwas, > If I understand you right, you are talking about a way to use changes > to IS-IS to do Inter Data Center address exchange. No. I proposed to distribute VPN membership information, rather than CE MAC reachability information, across PE routers by using IS-IS TLV extension. In addition, the PE routers mentioned here could be the edge devices of a single data center network. What you were talking about is what OTV does. > There is something called Overlay Transport Virtualization (OTV), > which seems to do what you are suggesting. That said I know there were OTV distributes CE MAC reachability information across OTV edge routers by using IS-IS messages, which in turn are conveyed in a provider multicast distribution tree between OTV edge routers. By the way, OTV uses the VLAN tag to identify difference VPN instances. Best wishes, Xiaohu > attempts to send addresses instead of doing L2 learning for VPLS, > quite a while back. > > Thanks, > Vishwas > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Xu Xiaohu wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able > to > > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth > > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of VPN > > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data > > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, BGP > and > > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > > > > So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those > > special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run between P > and > > PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute > > their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances and > > associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be carried in > > the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). > Note > > that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN > > instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > > particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE router > now > > could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > > received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > > > > Any comment? > > > > Best wishes, > > Xiaohu > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Isis-wg mailing list > > Isis-wg@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > > > From xuxh@huawei.com Sun Jan 9 19:26:46 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE893A6403; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:26:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.398, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ABBrZO8zMyCk; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:26:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BA63A63EC; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:26:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES005PWEY3HV@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:27:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LES00AJUEY3L3@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:27:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LES00KUMEXYO1@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:27:39 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:33:26 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <001601cbb069$0ecf4370$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> To: 'Phil Bedard' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <001f01cbb077$262f6c30$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: Acuu0UBHs43BnVxPT/2ITYrJcVXo7wBkqr0gAASZ/uA= Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 03:26:46 -0000 > If the CE MAC reachability information is desired to be distributed across > PE routers on the control plane, such information should be fully > transparent to P routers as if the packets containing that information are > normal data packets. I should rephrase the above as "...as if the packets containing that information were normal ENCAPSULATED CE data packets, because the CE MAC reachability information of a given VPN should only be received by the PE routers attached to that VPN." Best wishes, Xiaohu > Best wishes, > Xiaohu > > > -Phil > > > > > > > > On 1/7/11 4:26 AM, "Xu Xiaohu" wrote: > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able > > >to > > >support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth > > >capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of > VPN > > >instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data > > >centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, BGP > > >and > > >LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > > >acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > > > > > >So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for > those > > >special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run between P > > >and > > >PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute > > >their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances and > > >associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be carried in > > >the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). > > >Note > > >that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN > > >instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > > >particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE router > > >now > > >could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > > >received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > > > > > >Any comment? > > > > > >Best wishes, > > >Xiaohu > > > > > > From vishwas@ipinfusion.com Sun Jan 9 19:07:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB3628C0EF; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:07:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.333 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dA6i+zs+QVaV; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD7B28C0F0; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:07:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so18740995fxm.31 for ; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:10:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.73.206 with SMTP id r14mr2466623faj.126.1294628998243; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:09:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.100.11 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:09:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <001b01cbb06e$4fe68670$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> References: <7E2EEBF3-9E79-4FE0-9D2C-6A862A508DA8@tony.li> <001b01cbb06e$4fe68670$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:09:58 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks From: Vishwas Manral To: Xu Xiaohu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:21:30 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, Tony Li , isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 03:07:49 -0000 Hi Xaiohu, I reread the thread. The first difference you need to consider is that IS-IS is a link state protocol, which means that every device in the network will have the same information. I am unsure how it will be easier to move complexity to IS-IS, than have it on a non-link state protocol. The information exchange required for VPN is not symmetric. Using it we will be exchanging information about all other PE devices to all other PE devices, which may not be required. With the model you are talking about there are a few other things you need to consider: 1. In case of Virtualized servers there will be multiple virtual servers within a physical server, each of which belong to a separate VPN. 2. Most of the virtual switches are Layer-2 capable, not MPLS or PW capable= . 3. I think extensions like attaching a Route Distinguisher (RD), will be required to IS-IS. So a lot of extensions will be required for the same. That said like I mentioned there is work on ways to exchange MAC Address over IS-IS called OTV, which you can have a look at. Thanks, Vishwas 2011/1/9 Xu Xiaohu : > > >> -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- >> =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Tony Li [mailto:tony.li@tony.li] >> =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C28=C8=D5 6:09 >> =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xu Xiaohu >> =B3=AD=CB=CD: l2vpn@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >> =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center netwo= rks >> >> >> Hi Xiaohu, >> >> >> > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be > able >> to >> > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth >> > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of > VPN >> > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the > data >> > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, BG= P > and >> > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much >> > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. >> >> >> It seems like moving the complexity from BGP or LDP into IS-IS isn't goi= ng > to >> make it go away. In fact, if anything, it would seem like this makes it > even >> more complicated. >> >> Isn't this a job for TRILL and Q-in-Q? > > Hi Tony, > > Did you mean that TRILL should scale its VPN instance amount by using > Q-in-Q? > > Best wishes, > Xiaohu > >> Regards, >> Tony > > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg > From vishwas@ipinfusion.com Sun Jan 9 19:11:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FA428C0D9; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:11:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.651 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c0JEgScsmXeD; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:11:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E14DE3A6870; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:11:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so18742671fxm.31 for ; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:13:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.103.5 with SMTP id i5mr2122663fao.31.1294629227700; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.100.11 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:13:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7E2EEBF3-9E79-4FE0-9D2C-6A862A508DA8@tony.li> <001b01cbb06e$4fe68670$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:13:47 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks From: Vishwas Manral To: Xu Xiaohu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:21:30 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, Tony Li , isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 03:11:38 -0000 Hi, To add the extensions like RD etc are required for L3VPN and not L2 VPN's, so would not apply to the VPLS case. Thanks, Vishwas 2011/1/9 Vishwas Manral : > Hi Xaiohu, > > I reread the thread. > > The first difference you need to consider is that IS-IS is a link > state protocol, which means that every device in the network will have > the same information. I am unsure how it will be easier to move > complexity to IS-IS, than have it on a non-link state protocol. The > information exchange required for VPN is not symmetric. > > Using it we will be exchanging information about all other PE devices > to all other PE devices, which may not be required. > > With the model you are talking about there are a few other things you > need to consider: > > 1. In case of Virtualized servers there will be multiple virtual > servers within a physical server, each of which belong to a separate > VPN. > 2. Most of the virtual switches are Layer-2 capable, not MPLS or PW capab= le. > 3. I think extensions like attaching a Route Distinguisher (RD), will > be required to IS-IS. So a lot of extensions will be required for the > same. > > That said like I mentioned there is work on ways to exchange MAC > Address over IS-IS called OTV, which you can have a look at. > > Thanks, > Vishwas > > 2011/1/9 Xu Xiaohu : >> >> >>> -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- >>> =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Tony Li [mailto:tony.li@tony.li] >>> =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C28=C8=D5 6:09 >>> =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xu Xiaohu >>> =B3=AD=CB=CD: l2vpn@ietf.org; isis-wg@ietf.org >>> =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center netw= orks >>> >>> >>> Hi Xiaohu, >>> >>> >>> > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be >> able >>> to >>> > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidt= h >>> > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount o= f >> VPN >>> > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the >> data >>> > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, B= GP >> and >>> > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much >>> > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. >>> >>> >>> It seems like moving the complexity from BGP or LDP into IS-IS isn't go= ing >> to >>> make it go away. In fact, if anything, it would seem like this makes i= t >> even >>> more complicated. >>> >>> Isn't this a job for TRILL and Q-in-Q? >> >> Hi Tony, >> >> Did you mean that TRILL should scale its VPN instance amount by using >> Q-in-Q? >> >> Best wishes, >> Xiaohu >> >>> Regards, >>> Tony >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Isis-wg mailing list >> Isis-wg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg >> > From Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com Mon Jan 10 12:06:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CB03A6B27; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:06:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GWh2MhQU-wsl; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:06:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4C43A6B0C; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:06:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LET00I7BPB2BV@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:09:03 -0600 (CST) Received: from LapPSmith ([10.47.132.40]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LET00DV5PAZ34@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:09:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:08:58 -0500 From: Peter Ashwood-Smith Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: To: 'Phil Bedard' , 'Xu Xiaohu' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <023e01cbb102$38f3e4f0$28842f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuvToL7S2hOIqv5QqmTFDqq/khjoABsc3RQ X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:32:26 -0800 Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:06:50 -0000 > The downside to > using the IGP to distribute VPN information is the P core is exposed to > all of the VPN information unnecessarily. In the context of 802.1aq/SPB the 'P' core can instantiate true multicast state through simple computation .. so its not 'unnecessary' ;) and in the case where you don't want true multicast and can live with head end replication its just silently ignored at fairly low cost but its not intended for the kinds of scale/heavy weight deployments as VPLS and for the small to medium sized network, i.e. < 500 or so nodes it works rather well. You really need to compare 802.1aq SPB to VPLS + all the mp 2 mp signalling protocols to see the proper trade-offs because all that signalling adds a lot of overhead that is completely absent in .1aq. Anyway if I understand the proposal correctly it takes IS-IS and advertises a network wide MPLS label for a particular L2 VPN as opposed to source / VPN specific as VPLS would do. I've seen this proposed a few times over the years in L2VPN but it always got trounced because of the global nature of the label. Peter -----Original Message----- From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phil Bedard Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 8:13 PM To: Xu Xiaohu; l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks If one wishes to stay at L2, 802.1aq uses the PBB/802.1ah I-SID value to differentiate instances, as opposed to an MPLS label, and distributes this information via IS-IS. The B-MAC of the source bridge is similar to an IP address in abstracting all service instances behind a single identifier, so the concept is similar. TRILL may provide the same benefits. If one is using VPLS (L3), I'm not going to say the idea has no merit because running a single protocol on the network may be attractive to some providers as opposed to running an IGP plus BGP/LDP. Using IP encapsulation instead of MPLS has been implemented by some vendors, but with an outer encapsulation header like GRE or L2TPv3. The downside to using the IGP to distribute VPN information is the P core is exposed to all of the VPN information unnecessarily. Also there are some VPLS drafts which use BGP to distribute MAC information as well, which may be beneficial as opposed to using L2 learning methods. -Phil On 1/7/11 4:26 AM, "Xu Xiaohu" wrote: >Hi all, > >Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able >to >support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth >capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of VPN >instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data >centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, BGP >and >LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much >acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > >So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those >special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run between P >and >PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute >their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances and >associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be carried in >the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). >Note >that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN >instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a >particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE router >now >could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the >received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > >Any comment? > >Best wishes, >Xiaohu > > _______________________________________________ Isis-wg mailing list Isis-wg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From xuxh@huawei.com Mon Jan 10 16:54:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431793A682E; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:54:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.123 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id za5cknyudyzP; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:54:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDB53A67D6; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:54:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU0052K2MQ87@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:56:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU00HLC2MPN3@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:56:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEU00DZJ2MPOJ@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:56:49 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:02:43 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <023e01cbb102$38f3e4f0$28842f0a@china.huawei.com> To: 'Peter Ashwood-Smith' , 'Phil Bedard' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <004201cbb12b$40ca4920$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcuvToL7S2hOIqv5QqmTFDqq/khjoABsc3RQAApfWSA= Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:54:47 -0000 Hi Peter, > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Peter Ashwood-Smith = [mailto:Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com] > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C211=C8=D5 4:09 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'Phil Bedard'; 'Xu Xiaohu'; l2vpn@ietf.org > =B3=AD=CB=CD: isis-wg@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: RE: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center = networks >=20 >=20 > > The downside to > > using the IGP to distribute VPN information is the P core is exposed = to > > all of the VPN information unnecessarily. >=20 > In the context of 802.1aq/SPB the 'P' core can instantiate true = multicast > state through simple computation .. so its not 'unnecessary' ;) and in = the > case where you don't want true multicast and can live with head end > replication its just silently ignored at fairly low cost but its not > intended for the kinds of scale/heavy weight deployments as VPLS and = for the > small to medium sized network, i.e. < 500 or so nodes it works rather well. >=20 > You really need to compare 802.1aq SPB to VPLS + all the mp 2 mp signalling > protocols to see the proper trade-offs because all that signalling = adds a > lot of overhead that is completely absent in .1aq. > Anyway if I understand the proposal correctly it takes IS-IS and advertises > a network wide MPLS label for a particular L2 VPN as opposed to source = / VPN > specific as VPLS would do. I've seen this proposed a few times over = the > years in L2VPN but it always got trounced because of the global nature = of > the label. The MPLS VPLS label I proposed to identify different VPLS instances in = IS-IS based VPLS doesn't need to be globally unique. It is only required that = a PE router should assign the same label for a given VPLS instance to all = other PE routers. That's to say, this label is now a VPN label, rather than a = PW label. The following is a demonstration of the IS-IS TLV for VPLS: +-----------+ |Type=3DVPLS | (8 bits) +-----------+ |Length | (8 bits) +-----------+-----------------------------------------+ | Sub_TLV for PE's IPv4 or IPv6 Address | +--------------------------------+--------------------+ | VPLS_ID (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ | MPLS Label (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ | | | ...... | +--------------------------------+ | VPLS_ID (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ | MPLS Label (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ Best wishes, Xiaohu > Peter >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf > Of Phil Bedard > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 8:13 PM > To: Xu Xiaohu; l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks >=20 > If one wishes to stay at L2, 802.1aq uses the PBB/802.1ah I-SID value = to > differentiate instances, as opposed to an MPLS label, and distributes = this > information via IS-IS. The B-MAC of the source bridge is similar to = an IP > address in abstracting all service instances behind a single = identifier, > so the concept is similar. TRILL may provide the same benefits. >=20 > If one is using VPLS (L3), I'm not going to say the idea has no merit > because running a single protocol on the network may be attractive to = some > providers as opposed to running an IGP plus BGP/LDP. Using IP > encapsulation instead of MPLS has been implemented by some vendors, = but > with an outer encapsulation header like GRE or L2TPv3. The downside = to > using the IGP to distribute VPN information is the P core is exposed = to > all of the VPN information unnecessarily. Also there are some VPLS = drafts > which use BGP to distribute MAC information as well, which may be > beneficial as opposed to using L2 learning methods. >=20 > -Phil >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 1/7/11 4:26 AM, "Xu Xiaohu" wrote: >=20 > >Hi all, > > > >Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be = able > >to > >support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the = bandwidth > >capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount = of VPN > >instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the = data > >centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, = BGP > >and > >LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > >acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > > > >So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those > >special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run = between P > >and > >PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to = distribute > >their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances = and > >associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be = carried in > >the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., = MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). > >Note > >that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN > >instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > >particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE = router > >now > >could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > >received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > > > >Any comment? > > > >Best wishes, > >Xiaohu > > > > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From davari@broadcom.com Mon Jan 10 17:30:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767703A68BE; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:30:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.187 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.412, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rFhWA5fQ+B3F; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:30:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mms1.broadcom.com (mms1.broadcom.com [216.31.210.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B623A68BD; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:30:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.16.192.232] by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:33:29 -0800 X-Server-Uuid: 02CED230-5797-4B57-9875-D5D2FEE4708A Received: from SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.130]) by SJEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.232]) with mapi; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:32:14 -0800 From: "Shahram Davari" To: "Xu Xiaohu" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:32:12 -0800 Subject: RE: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks Thread-Topic: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks Thread-Index: AcuuTPBDfBVMNoPjRoq8yzBogulXxgC4hW4w Message-ID: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6941AA519B0@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> References: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 61356CE33P054635966-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "isis-wg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:30:12 -0000 Gi Xu, There are other ways of doing this such as using GRE tunnels. Also in data-= center the network is centrally managed, meaning that a global VPN identifi= er can be used as opposed to VPLS. Thx Shahram -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of X= u Xiaohu Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:26 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks Hi all, Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able t= o support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of VPN instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, BGP and LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much acceptable for some cloud data center providers. So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run between P an= d PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances and associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be carried in the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). Note that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE router now could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. Any comment? Best wishes, Xiaohu From l2vpn@punk.co.nz Mon Jan 10 18:16:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C7028C186 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:16:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3eDMBrKPqO+k for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:16:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from atlas.wxnz.net (atlas.wxnz.net [58.28.6.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA92928C184 for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:16:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.3] (ip-118-90-86-111.xdsl.xnet.co.nz [118.90.86.111]) by atlas.wxnz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EB02D8164; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:18:34 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <4D2BBDF9.6050801@punk.co.nz> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:18:33 +1300 From: Kris Price User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xu Xiaohu , l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks References: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <000801cbae4c$f0811510$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:16:23 -0000 On 7/01/2011 10:26 p.m., Xu Xiaohu wrote: > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able to > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of VPN > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, BGP and > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. I agree there could be value in a simplified VPLS for use in data centres and campuses. Some might claim TRILL is candidate for these applications, but TRILL was not scoped for these kinds of data centres or large campuses, and so made decisions that affected its suitability for it. There was an early TRILL proposal to use MPLS forwarding (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryant-perlman-trill-pwe-encap-00). > So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those > special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run between P and > PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute > their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances and > associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be carried in > the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). Note > that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN > instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE router now > could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. Having to tunnel MPLS in IP seems a drawback to me, or is that intended so as to do away with the label signalling in the control plane? I'd be quite interested in a way to this without the obligatory IP layer. In that case certainly IS-IS could be used for the auto-discovery mechanism, but the signalling and data-plane learning become tricky. If recievers simply send their VPN labels in IS-IS nodes can send packets, but the recievers can't learn the source without that outer tunnel IP header. Perhaps the mechanism used for BGP based signalling could be adapted? Or perhaps each node globally allocates themselves a label (in the vein of TRILLs nickname algorithm) then distribute this in IS-IS, and use it as the bottom label to identify themselves as the source? Cheers Kris From xuxh@huawei.com Mon Jan 10 19:36:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACC528C20D for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.636 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e7ukCN6PFkOg for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B29A28C20E for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU004UCA48FG@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:38:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU004OYA48FK@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:38:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEU00EGEA47WV@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:38:32 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:44:26 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <4D2BBDF9.6050801@punk.co.nz> To: 'Kris Price' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <005201cbb141$d82057e0$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcuxNeHOO5zFirXDTTGEPU265P8cvwACdSyA X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:36:28 -0000 Hi Kris, > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Kris Price [mailto:l2vpn@punk.co.nz] > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C211=C8=D5 10:19 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xu Xiaohu; l2vpn@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks >=20 > On 7/01/2011 10:26 p.m., Xu Xiaohu wrote: > > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able > to > > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the = bandwidth > > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount = of VPN > > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data > > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, = BGP and > > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. >=20 > I agree there could be value in a simplified VPLS for use in data > centres and campuses. Some might claim TRILL is candidate for these > applications, but TRILL was not scoped for these kinds of data centres > or large campuses, and so made decisions that affected its suitability > for it. There was an early TRILL proposal to use MPLS forwarding > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryant-perlman-trill-pwe-encap-00). >=20 > > So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those > > special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run = between P and > > PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute > > their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances = and > > associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be = carried in > > the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., = MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). Note > > that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular = VPN > > instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > > particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE = router now > > could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > > received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. >=20 > Having to tunnel MPLS in IP seems a drawback to me, or is that = intended > so as to do away with the label signalling in the control plane? I'd = be Yes. The PE-PE tunnel is IP based tunnel, rather than MPLS LSP tunnel. > quite interested in a way to this without the obligatory IP layer. What is the preferred encapsulation method for the PE-PE tunnel in your mind? > In that case certainly IS-IS could be used for the auto-discovery > mechanism, but the signalling and data-plane learning become tricky. = If > recievers simply send their VPN labels in IS-IS nodes can send = packets, > but the recievers can't learn the source without that outer tunnel IP IMHO, IP is the most simple, most mature and most familiar technology = for the shortest path routing/forwarding. Hence there is such problem as you mentioned once IP tunnel is used between PE routers of a data center network. > header. Perhaps the mechanism used for BGP based signalling could be > adapted? Or perhaps each node globally allocates themselves a label = (in > the vein of TRILLs nickname algorithm) then distribute this in IS-IS, > and use it as the bottom label to identify themselves as the source? It works. However, I guess the globally unique MPLS label is not much acceptable to most people since it requires additional cost on the management plane or the control plane. Best wishes, Xiaohu >=20 > Cheers > Kris From xuxh@huawei.com Mon Jan 10 20:04:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04FE28C20E; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:04:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.357 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.937, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P+Hmot+Yj2KR; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:04:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE7B028C20D; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:04:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU00100BC750@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:04:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU0007FBC72E@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:04:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEU00B1PBC659@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:04:55 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:10:49 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6941AA519B0@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> To: 'Shahram Davari' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <005301cbb145$87afdb60$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcuuTPBDfBVMNoPjRoq8yzBogulXxgC4hW4wAATmjeA= Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 04:04:16 -0000 Hi Shahram, > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Shahram Davari [mailto:davari@broadcom.com] > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C211=C8=D5 9:32 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xu Xiaohu; l2vpn@ietf.org > =B3=AD=CB=CD: isis-wg@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: RE: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks >=20 > Gi Xu, >=20 > There are other ways of doing this such as using GRE tunnels. Also in data-center > the network is centrally managed, meaning that a global VPN identifier = can be > used as opposed to VPLS. The following ISIS TLV for VPLS (demo) provides you enough flexibility. That's to say, for a given VPLS instance, PE routers could either assign = it a globally identical label or not. The former option is only useful in = the scenario where a single multicast distribution tree in the data center network backbone is shared by more than one VPLS instance. Such a tree = is referred to as an "Aggregate Inclusive Tree" (see draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast). For unicast and ingress-replication multicast cases, there is no need to use the former option. To achieve = the former option, the MPLS label for a given VPLS instance equals the VPLS = ID of that VPN instance. +-----------+ |Type=3DVPLS | (8 bits) +-----------+ |Length | (8 bits) +-----------+-----------------------------------------+ | Sub_TLV for PE's IPv4 or IPv6 Address | +--------------------------------+--------------------+ | VPLS_ID (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ | MPLS Label (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ | | | ...... | +--------------------------------+ | VPLS_ID (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ | MPLS Label (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ Best wishes, Xiaohu > Thx > Shahram >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Xu > Xiaohu > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:26 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be = able to > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the bandwidth > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount of = VPN > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the = data > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, = BGP and > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. >=20 > So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for = those > special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run between = P and > PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to = distribute > their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances and > associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be carried = in > the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). Note > that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN > instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE = router now > could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. >=20 > Any comment? >=20 > Best wishes, > Xiaohu >=20 >=20 From xuxh@huawei.com Mon Jan 10 20:07:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5C628C25A for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:07:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id okDXGFFhg6xy for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:07:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8F628C20E for ; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:07:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU003CBBKIFQ@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:09:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU00BALBKHTB@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:09:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEU00B4TBKH59@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:09:53 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 12:15:48 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <005201cbb141$d82057e0$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> To: 'Kris Price' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <005a01cbb146$39ba5150$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcuxNeHOO5zFirXDTTGEPU265P8cvwACdSyAAAGIK2A= X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 04:07:52 -0000 > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED Xu > Xiaohu > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C211=C8=D5 11:44 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'Kris Price'; l2vpn@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks >=20 > Hi Kris, >=20 > > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Kris Price [mailto:l2vpn@punk.co.nz] > > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C211=C8=D5 10:19 > > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xu Xiaohu; l2vpn@ietf.org > > =D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks > > > > On 7/01/2011 10:26 p.m., Xu Xiaohu wrote: > > > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only = be > able > > to > > > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the = bandwidth > > > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge = amount of > VPN > > > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within = the > data > > > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. = However, BGP > and > > > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not = much > > > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > > > > I agree there could be value in a simplified VPLS for use in data > > centres and campuses. Some might claim TRILL is candidate for these > > applications, but TRILL was not scoped for these kinds of data = centres > > or large campuses, and so made decisions that affected its = suitability > > for it. There was an early TRILL proposal to use MPLS forwarding > > = (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryant-perlman-trill-pwe-encap-00). > > > > > So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS = for > those > > > special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run = between P > and > > > PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to > distribute > > > their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances = and > > > associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be = carried > in > > > the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., = MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). > Note > > > that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular = VPN > > > instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > > > particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE router > now > > > could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in = the > > > received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > > > > Having to tunnel MPLS in IP seems a drawback to me, or is that = intended > > so as to do away with the label signalling in the control plane? I'd = be >=20 > Yes. The PE-PE tunnel is IP based tunnel, rather than MPLS LSP tunnel. >=20 > > quite interested in a way to this without the obligatory IP layer. >=20 > What is the preferred encapsulation method for the PE-PE tunnel in = your > mind? >=20 > > In that case certainly IS-IS could be used for the auto-discovery > > mechanism, but the signalling and data-plane learning become tricky. = If > > recievers simply send their VPN labels in IS-IS nodes can send = packets, > > but the recievers can't learn the source without that outer tunnel = IP >=20 > IMHO, IP is the most simple, most mature and most familiar technology = for > the shortest path routing/forwarding. Hence there is such problem as = you > mentioned once IP tunnel is used between PE routers of a data center > network. Sorry, I wanted to say: ...Hence there would be no such problem as you mentioned once the IP based tunnels were used between PE routers of a = data center network. Best wishes, Xiaohu > > header. Perhaps the mechanism used for BGP based signalling could be > > adapted? Or perhaps each node globally allocates themselves a label = (in > > the vein of TRILLs nickname algorithm) then distribute this in = IS-IS, > > and use it as the bottom label to identify themselves as the source? >=20 > It works. However, I guess the globally unique MPLS label is not much > acceptable to most people since it requires additional cost on the > management plane or the control plane. >=20 > Best wishes, > Xiaohu >=20 > > > > Cheers > > Kris From xuxh@huawei.com Mon Jan 10 22:40:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC953A69B6; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:40:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.487 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.219, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JA9IXYFcZNMq; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550983A69B4; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:40:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU00CUDIJRQ7@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU00BKAIJR18@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEU009NQIJRF9@szxml06-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:40:39 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:46:33 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <005301cbb145$87afdb60$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> To: 'Shahram Davari' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <005b01cbb15b$4986c360$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcuuTPBDfBVMNoPjRoq8yzBogulXxgC4hW4wAATmjeAABayN0A== Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:40:45 -0000 > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED Xu > Xiaohu > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C211=C8=D5 12:11 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'Shahram Davari'; l2vpn@ietf.org > =B3=AD=CB=CD: isis-wg@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: re: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks >=20 > Hi Shahram, >=20 > > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Shahram Davari [mailto:davari@broadcom.com] > > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C211=C8=D5 9:32 > > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xu Xiaohu; l2vpn@ietf.org > > =B3=AD=CB=CD: isis-wg@ietf.org > > =D6=F7=CC=E2: RE: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks > > > > Gi Xu, > > > > There are other ways of doing this such as using GRE tunnels. Also = in > data-center > > the network is centrally managed, meaning that a global VPN = identifier can > be > > used as opposed to VPLS. >=20 > The following ISIS TLV for VPLS (demo) provides you enough = flexibility. > That's to say, for a given VPLS instance, PE routers could either = assign it > a globally identical label or not. The former option is only useful in = the > scenario where a single multicast distribution tree in the data center > network backbone is shared by more than one VPLS instance. Such a tree = is > referred to as an "Aggregate Inclusive Tree" (see > draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast). For unicast and ingress-replication > multicast cases, there is no need to use the former option. To achieve = the By the way, the former option is not necessary either in the case where = a single multicast distribution tree in the data center network backbone = is exclusively used by one VPLS instance, because the multicast group = address itself in the IP tunnel header could identify a particular VPLS = instance. In this case, the customer multicast/broadcast or unknown unicast MAC frame would be encapsulated directly with an IP tunnel header (e.g., = MAC-in-IP). Best wishes, Xiaohu > former option, the MPLS label for a given VPLS instance equals the = VPLS ID > of that VPN instance. >=20 > +-----------+ > |Type=3DVPLS | (8 bits) > +-----------+ > |Length | (8 bits) > +-----------+-----------------------------------------+ > | Sub_TLV for PE's IPv4 or IPv6 Address | > +--------------------------------+--------------------+ > | VPLS_ID (20 bits) | > +--------------------------------+ > | MPLS Label (20 bits) | > +--------------------------------+ > | | > | ...... | > +--------------------------------+ > | VPLS_ID (20 bits) | > +--------------------------------+ > | MPLS Label (20 bits) | > +--------------------------------+ >=20 > Best wishes, > Xiaohu >=20 > > Thx > > Shahram > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of > Xu > > Xiaohu > > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:26 AM > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org > > Subject: IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks > > > > Hi all, > > > > Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be able > to > > support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the = bandwidth > > capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount = of VPN > > instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the data > > centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, = BGP > and > > LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > > acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > > > > So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those > > special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run = between P > and > > PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to distribute > > their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances = and > > associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be = carried in > > the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., = MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). > Note > > that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular = VPN > > instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > > particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE = router > now > > could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > > received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > > > > Any comment? > > > > Best wishes, > > Xiaohu > > > > From Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com Mon Jan 10 23:06:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44933A69B6; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:06:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.704 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.895, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a8BaCzKu3dwq; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A560E3A69BA; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:06:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU00772JUNN7@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:08:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from LapPSmith ([10.47.134.2]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEU00DP3JUKBB@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:08:47 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:08:43 -0500 From: Peter Ashwood-Smith Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks In-reply-to: <004201cbb12b$40ca4920$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> To: 'Xu Xiaohu' , 'Phil Bedard' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <005401cbb15e$632e4510$02862f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcuvToL7S2hOIqv5QqmTFDqq/khjoABsc3RQAApfWSAADSBm0A== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 02:12:48 -0800 Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:06:34 -0000 Yes, sorry I meant to say network wide unique.=20 Peter -----Original Message----- From: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:xuxh@huawei.com]=20 Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 8:03 PM To: 'Peter Ashwood-Smith'; 'Phil Bedard'; l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org Subject: re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks Hi Peter, > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Peter Ashwood-Smith = [mailto:Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com] > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C211=C8=D5 4:09 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'Phil Bedard'; 'Xu Xiaohu'; l2vpn@ietf.org > =B3=AD=CB=CD: isis-wg@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: RE: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center = networks >=20 >=20 > > The downside to > > using the IGP to distribute VPN information is the P core is exposed = to > > all of the VPN information unnecessarily. >=20 > In the context of 802.1aq/SPB the 'P' core can instantiate true = multicast > state through simple computation .. so its not 'unnecessary' ;) and in = the > case where you don't want true multicast and can live with head end > replication its just silently ignored at fairly low cost but its not > intended for the kinds of scale/heavy weight deployments as VPLS and = for the > small to medium sized network, i.e. < 500 or so nodes it works rather well. >=20 > You really need to compare 802.1aq SPB to VPLS + all the mp 2 mp signalling > protocols to see the proper trade-offs because all that signalling = adds a > lot of overhead that is completely absent in .1aq. > Anyway if I understand the proposal correctly it takes IS-IS and advertises > a network wide MPLS label for a particular L2 VPN as opposed to source = / VPN > specific as VPLS would do. I've seen this proposed a few times over = the > years in L2VPN but it always got trounced because of the global nature = of > the label. The MPLS VPLS label I proposed to identify different VPLS instances in = IS-IS based VPLS doesn't need to be globally unique. It is only required that = a PE router should assign the same label for a given VPLS instance to all = other PE routers. That's to say, this label is now a VPN label, rather than a = PW label. The following is a demonstration of the IS-IS TLV for VPLS: +-----------+ |Type=3DVPLS | (8 bits) +-----------+ |Length | (8 bits) +-----------+-----------------------------------------+ | Sub_TLV for PE's IPv4 or IPv6 Address | +--------------------------------+--------------------+ | VPLS_ID (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ | MPLS Label (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ | | | ...... | +--------------------------------+ | VPLS_ID (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ | MPLS Label (20 bits) | +--------------------------------+ Best wishes, Xiaohu > Peter >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:isis-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf > Of Phil Bedard > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 8:13 PM > To: Xu Xiaohu; l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] IS-IS based VPLS for cloud data center networks >=20 > If one wishes to stay at L2, 802.1aq uses the PBB/802.1ah I-SID value = to > differentiate instances, as opposed to an MPLS label, and distributes = this > information via IS-IS. The B-MAC of the source bridge is similar to = an IP > address in abstracting all service instances behind a single = identifier, > so the concept is similar. TRILL may provide the same benefits. >=20 > If one is using VPLS (L3), I'm not going to say the idea has no merit > because running a single protocol on the network may be attractive to = some > providers as opposed to running an IGP plus BGP/LDP. Using IP > encapsulation instead of MPLS has been implemented by some vendors, = but > with an outer encapsulation header like GRE or L2TPv3. The downside = to > using the IGP to distribute VPN information is the P core is exposed = to > all of the VPN information unnecessarily. Also there are some VPLS = drafts > which use BGP to distribute MAC information as well, which may be > beneficial as opposed to using L2 learning methods. >=20 > -Phil >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 1/7/11 4:26 AM, "Xu Xiaohu" wrote: >=20 > >Hi all, > > > >Cloud data centers require large L2 network which should not only be = able > >to > >support shortest path forwarding and ECMP for maximizing the = bandwidth > >capacity between servers, but also be able to provide a huge amount = of VPN > >instances for isolating hundreds of thousands of tenement within the = data > >centers. VPLS seems as a good option for this requirement. However, = BGP > >and > >LDP based VPLS solutions seem a bit heavy-weight and hence not much > >acceptable for some cloud data center providers. > > > >So I wonder whether it is reasonable to develop IS-IS based VPLS for those > >special cloud data center providers. For example, IS-IS is run = between P > >and > >PE routers, and an extended IS-IS TLV is used by PE routers to = distribute > >their own VPN membership information (e.g., attached VPN instances = and > >associated VPN labels) among each other. The VPN label will be = carried in > >the inner MPLS header of L2VPN data packets (e.g., = MAC-in-MPLS-in-IP). > >Note > >that the VPN label here now is just used to identify a particular VPN > >instance, but not to identify both a particular VPN instance and a > >particular ingress PE router as the PW label does. The egress PE = router > >now > >could use the source IP address of the outer IP tunnel header in the > >received L2VPN data packet to identify the ingress PE router. > > > >Any comment? > > > >Best wishes, > >Xiaohu > > > > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Isis-wg mailing list > Isis-wg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg From giles.heron@gmail.com Tue Jan 11 05:11:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B2928C28F for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:11:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uDgYJcu40W2g for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:11:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B852A28C28D for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:11:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so9451288ewy.31 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:14:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:user-agent:date:subject:from :to:cc:message-id:thread-topic:thread-index:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=O3oKs+sSvw8EWYPk/uwKwXB/gWtRlvYx+xB826DORHg=; b=APwMC89KeAGn0U4amIaojWFTIO0WEUNwc1+KOBov3ygh/lNHlYTLXZLGxJHWsWF4qM vDPnAb1XTE1r4b1A8/W2Trn4gtgx2K6ZqhLATt59ZXoiZOaxpQK8HFec5xa8kUpcGNRc 7jck7Hp04yCi2aGR04fBiv72ROVWmvkn53SGw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hZ3oQW1jLwwiL0XXBsXDhCVRstHAv81kTNSp1GQmFlca1+zDA0M+j/eYNYPhn44TXI UV03eLaA9CTQpeyRlI6OLEd2KR4Y06KranmTdzQFtvOtoqh5v/k4A376TUqeWQOXmu7z wUUi/Ia80XsJzjVTmGvmYrXmUQIRPYU6bC5tQ= Received: by 10.213.15.76 with SMTP id j12mr2804375eba.54.1294751643693; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:14:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.61.96.205] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u1sm5672498eeh.10.2011.01.11.05.14.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:14:02 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:14:26 +0000 Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqA== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:11:49 -0000 This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Jan 11 06:18:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B5B28C2A4 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:18:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MK6unCrMyGlF for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:18:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D14628C27F for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 06:18:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p0BEKVPX018545 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:20:31 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:20:31 +0100 From: "LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:20:27 +0100 Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqAACLVoA Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.84 Cc: "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:18:19 -0000 Accept. This draft defines useful extensions for mcast/bcast replication and is mat= ure enough to be considered as a WG. Some of the minor points that have not been detailed yet (e.g. handling of = unknown while transitioning from p2p to p2mp) can be dealt with once it is = WG draft. Marc -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: mardi 11 janvier 2011 14:14 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Tue Jan 11 19:27:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5D43A6895 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:27:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.303, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EuTqhSuFYXBh for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:27:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69AB3A689F for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:27:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 20595577109098; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:26:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.32.0.74] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 25080.1356371974; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:23:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse3.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p0C3U6lm077221; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:30:06 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:29:40 +0800 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-01-12 11:29:56, Serialize by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-01-12 11:29:56, Serialize complete at 2011-01-12 11:29:56, S/MIME Sign failed at 2011-01-12 11:29:56: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-01-12 11:29:58, Serialize complete at 2011-01-12 11:29:58 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0013389B48257816_=" X-MAIL: mse3.zte.com.cn p0C3U6lm077221 Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:27:57 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0013389B48257816_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Accept, thanks. Lizhong > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:14:26 +0000 > From: Giles Heron > Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? > To: > Cc: "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com" > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > This is a poll to ask if: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. > > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) > > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 0013389B48257816_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Accept, thanks.

Lizhong


> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:14:26 +0000
> From: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
> Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft?
> To: <l2vpn@ietf.org>
> Cc: "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com"
>    <frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com>
> Message-ID: <C9520832.444C%giles.heron@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="US-ASCII"
>
> This is a poll to ask if:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03
>
> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.
>
> Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread.
>
> Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft.  We'd
> really like to see some technical discussions :)
>
> We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Nabil & Giles
>
>
>
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 0013389B48257816_=-- From simon.delord@gmail.com Tue Jan 11 23:56:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA213A69D9 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:56:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jgqg3BOH7IzB for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590323A69AE for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so319191fxm.31 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:58:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hVavuwfLKd5CV8XfHLomCVu8hVXBLEP7vbN6sZRYaMA=; b=ZoEmeaPBaHRJvFB5955K3gqh4/tlFN2tLG4hr3ibR4slT5zBCRel1SIiq8M6TgKY6y +P63aS4a5KiX+oAyW9QVH7qvuy2LyeFl4Jjd9mZiloztmSNTmpjhKSCkqtF4Plb5OFjK xI98/vL8FWvxc7vsOyH2ZmgS714Nl07r9oD5s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ob+SxpOBhG3kJ657YqTgUBSD/jrjhkYrLwyqmqzvwCQt0o2iwCqmYmPAzL4YJWZQZo ntVv9mjx2UvYCwRWPN6Tf3jBpwAlkRALVstnRrOOXiJzXA6LPE5nevc9KcHKC5eAkj96 9NMlwWWIGEYeEDXc0YmsskMaUyT5XH9ZyRdCc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.86.16 with SMTP id q16mr648179fal.58.1294819106424; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:58:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.122.67 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:58:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:58:26 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? From: Simon Delord To: Giles Heron , l2vpn@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3054a6e9e307e00499a190ec Cc: "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:56:10 -0000 --20cf3054a6e9e307e00499a190ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Accept, Simon 2011/1/11 Giles Heron > This is a poll to ask if: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. > > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) > > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles > > > --20cf3054a6e9e307e00499a190ec Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Accept,
Simon

2011/1/11 Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
This is a poll to ask if:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn= -ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03

should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.

Please reply "acce= pt" or "do not accept" to this thread.

Please start a= new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. =A0We'd
real= ly like to see some technical discussions :)

We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011.

Thanks!
=
Nabil & Giles



--20cf3054a6e9e307e00499a190ec-- From yljiang@huawei.com Wed Jan 12 01:07:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11293A69F2 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:07:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.835 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.340, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kYKDyeZYS1LI for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:07:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85953A681B for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:07:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEW00M7DJZLKD@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEW002QPJZLEE@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from j59929 ([10.70.40.100]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEW00B72JZLU1@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:57 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:07:08 +0800 From: Yuanlong Jiang Subject: Re:draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? In-reply-to: To: 'Giles Heron' Message-id: <000901cbb238$17412890$6428460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuxysI1R2wscJSGTHme2lz+LL0NMwAbPYTA Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:07:20 -0000 Accept. Best Regards Yuanlong Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:14:26 +0000 From: Giles Heron Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? To: Cc: "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From philippe.niger@orange-ftgroup.com Wed Jan 12 01:37:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4920228C10B for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:37:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q9NnSpbBiPeS for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7743928C0FE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B7237D8002; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:44:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B18760002; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:44:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:39:36 +0100 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 Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:39:33 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqAAqtAPw References: From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2011 09:39:36.0452 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0217440:01CBB23C] Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:37:19 -0000 Accept, Philippe.=20 -----Message d'origine----- De : l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] De la part = de Giles Heron Envoy=E9 : mardi 11 janvier 2011 14:14 =C0 : l2vpn@ietf.org Cc : JOUNAY Frederic RD-RESA-LAN Objet : draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03= should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. = We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From xipengx@huawei.com Wed Jan 12 03:17:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243503A6B0E for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:17:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.714 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4gFbmiKJvXC1 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:17:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrga02-in.huawei.com (lhrga02-in.huawei.com [195.33.106.143]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170DA3A6A63 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:17:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (lhrga02-in [172.18.7.45]) by lhrga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEW004IUQ4A78@lhrga02-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:19:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from x737190 ([10.200.113.91]) by lhrga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEW0007IQ48H8@lhrga02-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:19:21 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:20:07 +0100 From: Xipeng Xiao Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? To: l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <9AFC93F2699B4D8BAF65A4E91F338931@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_pwu4eDUTTCUgusNlZ+UDGA)" Thread-index: AcuySqqxn8ZNdrIASam+rA0uR7U55w== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 04:54:53 -0800 Cc: nabil.bitar@verizon.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: xipengx@huawei.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:45:11 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_pwu4eDUTTCUgusNlZ+UDGA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept. Regards, XiPeng _____ This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles --Boundary_(ID_pwu4eDUTTCUgusNlZ+UDGA) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Accept.

 

Regards,

 

XiPeng 

This is a poll to ask if:
 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcas=
t-exten-03
 
should be accepted as an L2VPN WG =
draft.
 
Please reply "accept" or "do =
not accept" to this =
thread.
 
Please start a new thread for any technical =
discussions of the draft.  =
We'd
really like to see some technical discussions =
:)
 
We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th =
January 2011.
 
Thanks!
 
Nabil & =
Giles
 
 

 

 

--Boundary_(ID_pwu4eDUTTCUgusNlZ+UDGA)-- From william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Wed Jan 12 05:26:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C5E3A6B28 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:26:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.231 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyXRBpFKfjXR for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:26:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from omr14.networksolutionsemail.com (omr14.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D3C3A6B2C for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:26:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-omr12 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr14.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p0CDSjxY020552 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:28:45 -0500 X-Authenticated-IP: 205.178.146.50 Received: from [205.178.146.50] ([205.178.146.50:50840] helo=webmail44) by cm-omr12 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTP id EC/66-19167-D8CAD2D4; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:28:45 -0500 Received: from 208.55.254.110 (william.zayas@fibercrossing.net [208.55.254.110]) by webmail44 (Netsol 11.2.30) with WEBMAIL id 22577; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:28:45 +0000 From: william.zayas@fibercrossing.net To: philippe.niger@orange-ftgroup.com, giles.heron@gmail.com, l2vpn@ietf.org Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: X-Mailer: Network Solutions Webmail, Build 11.2.30 X-Originating-IP: [208.55.254.110] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:28:45 +0000 Subject: Re: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--=_vm_0011_W3890131913_22577_1294838925" Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:26:29 -0000 ----=_vm_0011_W3890131913_22577_1294838925 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Accept, William -----Original Message----- From: philippe.niger@orange-ftgroup.com [mailto:philippe.niger@orange-ftg= roup.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 04:39 AM To: giles.heron@gmail.com, l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Accept,Philippe. -----Message d'origine-----De : l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [= mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Giles HeronEnvoy=E9 : mardi = 11 janvier 2011 14:14=C0 : l2vpn@ietf.orgCc : JOUNAY Frederic RD-RESA-LAN= Objet : draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft?This is a= poll to ask if:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-br= oadcast-exten-03should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.Please reply "acc= ept" or "do not accept" to this thread.Please start a new thread for any = technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technica= l discussions :)We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011.Thank= s!Nabil & Giles ----=_vm_0011_W3890131913_22577_1294838925 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Accept,


William
 
-----Original Message-----
From: philippe.niger@orange-ftgr= oup.com [mailto:philippe.niger@orange-ftgroup.com]
Sent: Wednes= day, January 12, 2011 04:39 AM
To: giles.heron@gmail.com, l2vpn= @ietf.org
Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com
Subject:= RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft?

= Accept, Philippe. -----Message d'origine----- De : l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de= Giles Heron Envoy=E9 : mardi 11 janvier 2011 14:14 =C0 : l2vpn@ietf.org Cc : JOUNAY Frederic RD-RESA-LAN Objet : draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03= should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We= 'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles
----=_vm_0011_W3890131913_22577_1294838925-- From lucyyong@huawei.com Wed Jan 12 07:30:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D188228C107 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:30:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.681 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.814, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sw3qW8nefmiU for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:30:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE0A3A6B21 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:30:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEX00KVP1V13M@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEX00IY51V1BR@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from y736742 ([10.124.12.68]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEX00MVR1UYBR@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:01 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:32:57 -0600 From: Yong Lucy Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? In-reply-to: To: 'Giles Heron' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <006d01cbb26d$fe8157e0$440c7c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqAA3HuQg References: Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:30:57 -0000 Support! Cheers, Lucy > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Giles Heron > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:14 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com > Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? > > This is a poll to ask if: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. > > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. > We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) > > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles From ldunbar@huawei.com Wed Jan 12 07:31:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786F528C107 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:31:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.145 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.454, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hn9PHJCLgCZg for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:31:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from usaga02-in.huawei.com (usaga02-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CA728C13A for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:31:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEX00LSP1WLLS@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:33:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from L735042 ([10.124.12.121]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEX0080H1FWAY@usaga02-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:23:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:23:57 -0600 From: Linda Dunbar Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? In-reply-to: <000901cbb238$17412890$6428460a@china.huawei.com> To: 'Giles Heron' Message-id: <004401cbb26c$baefc940$790c7c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuxysI1R2wscJSGTHme2lz+LL0NMwAbPYTAAA076jA= References: <000901cbb238$17412890$6428460a@china.huawei.com> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:31:40 -0000 Accept. Best Regards Linda Dunbar Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:14:26 +0000 From: Giles Heron Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? To: Cc: "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From Ian.B.Stanley@team.telstra.com Wed Jan 12 12:50:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879B93A6A96 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:50:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VztRU8Ge3At1 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:49:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxbno.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650A03A69A4 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:49:58 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,314,1291554000"; d="scan'208";a="21981432" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.200]) by ipobni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2011 07:52:14 +1100 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6224"; a="17395242" Received: from wsmsg3751.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.172]) by ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2011 07:52:14 +1100 Received: from WSMSG3152V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.155]) by WSMSG3751.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.172]) with mapi; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:52:14 +1100 From: "Stanley, Ian B" To: Simon Delord , Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:52:12 +1100 Subject: Re: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuympbAth4u+24cS2qUohC0cJKWUA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.1.0.101012 acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:50:00 -0000 accept Regards, Ian Stanley Transport & Routing Architecture | AOM 02 9396 8508 0419 257221 This communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL or copyright information of Tel= stra Corporation Limited (ABN 33 051 775 556). If you are not an intended r= ecipient, you MUST NOT keep, forward, copy, use, save or rely on this commu= nication, and any such action is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have r= eceived this communication in error, please reply to this email to notify t= he sender of its incorrect delivery, and then delete both it and your reply= . Thank you. From: Simon Delord > Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:58:26 +1100 To: Giles Heron >, "l2v= pn@ietf.org" > Cc: "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com" > Subject: Re: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Accept, Simon 2011/1/11 Giles Heron > This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From zengqing@huawei.com Wed Jan 12 17:01:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75AF3A67EE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:01:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.092 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.403, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i4uxInkOMl-j for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:01:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB963A67AE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:01:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEX00HXMS9HDW@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:03:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEX00MAUS9GJP@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:03:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from z00129659 ([10.110.98.98]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEX002AXS9GBK@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:03:16 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:03:16 +0800 From: zengqing Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? In-reply-to: To: 'Giles Heron' Message-id: <000701cbb2bd$a931b000$fb951000$@com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: zh-cn Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqABKB47A References: Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 01:01:07 -0000 Accept. Best Regards Qing > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Giles Heron > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:14 PM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com > Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? > > This is a poll to ask if: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. > > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) > > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles From mngpl@singnet.com.sg Wed Jan 12 18:50:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160823A680C for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:50:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Sdr1uaF2jrE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:50:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from comsmtp1.singnet.com.sg (comsmtp1.singnet.com.sg [165.21.101.74]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8793A6805 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:49:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from pike.singnet.com.sg (pike.singnet.com.sg [165.21.101.112]) by comsmtp1.singnet.com.sg (8.14.1/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p0D2qE3c029410 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:52:14 +0800 Received: from pike.singnet.com.sg (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pike.singnet.com.sg (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p0D2q9Ga021338 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:52:19 +0800 Received: (from cooluser@localhost) by pike.singnet.com.sg (8.14.3/8.14.2/Submit) id p0D2q8pa021331 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:52:08 +0800 X-Authentication-Warning: pike.singnet.com.sg: cooluser set sender to mngpl@singnet.com.sg using -f To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Message-ID: <1294887128.4d2e68d84228a@discus.singnet.com.sg> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:52:08 +0800 (SGT) From: mngpl@singnet.com.sg References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: SingNet WebMail X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: mngpl@singnet.com.sg List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:50:13 -0000 Accept --- Giles Heron wrote: > This is a poll to ask if: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. > > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the > draft. We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) > > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles > > > From Raymond.Key@team.telstra.com Wed Jan 12 20:19:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885C63A6862 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:19:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DLfMXvK-f5nM for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:19:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipxano.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxano.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.82.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEFC3A6839 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:19:30 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,316,1291554000"; d="scan'208";a="25233684" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcdni.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.212]) by ipoani.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2011 15:21:50 +1100 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6224"; a="17177411" Received: from wsmsg3704.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.197]) by ipcdni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2011 15:21:51 +1100 Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.159]) by WSMSG3704.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.197]) with mapi; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:21:50 +1100 From: "Key, Raymond W" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:21:48 +1100 Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqABR8gEA Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127B4C02AA@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:19:32 -0000 Accept. Thanks, Raymond Key -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Wednesday, 12 January 2011 12:14 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From maillist.ed@gmail.com Wed Jan 12 20:20:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927B73A686B for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:20:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.223 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.223 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.375, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dsIOhMqxbKa2 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0223A6839 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so1380094wyf.31 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:22:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4kzNHH3Fky86YAoU8vvaWpBr/pOl7zgS/C0pmC+Y8uE=; b=xiy+guUCioBc4YgaZgDpkDL+xPFGlVWdc/uYrP2AhI/nFKiG1cD7HUO2JHSYfj2pQS q2CK1Y4Rpe7fXZF/Y9K1mJtRA2yza5jldpcwQuSdm5LVeGKQYib5qMCS587LjRT1p3Cj YKpaNQKL2jFlBvipBrVLwGfN3UfEtBwQ1nlbE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=j9WDVN3w7Q9TR/iSOuCsO25Fc/WNmvbY4tH2mtkRhWLVVuphqPA3omCsYpK4qgOEmM QryKNdsC5agRnWql9dl7EccerSxo9/tRCHBdh5kHU2sj8+Og7KfavHL1IcezlRifloYN tyLEPAGSSnPYI22uU4RWk9VSKOIXIFuksknI0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.129.83 with SMTP id n19mr1851030wbs.99.1294892576433; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:22:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.144.68 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:22:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:22:56 +1100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? From: Ed To: Giles Heron Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016367fa0220a689b0499b2ac67 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, "frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 04:20:40 -0000 --0016367fa0220a689b0499b2ac67 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Accept On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Giles Heron wrote: > This is a poll to ask if: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. > > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) > > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles > > > --0016367fa0220a689b0499b2ac67 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Accept

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a poll to ask if:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn= -ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03

should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.

Please reply "acce= pt" or "do not accept" to this thread.

Please start a= new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. =A0We'd
real= ly like to see some technical discussions :)

We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011.

Thanks!
=
Nabil & Giles



--0016367fa0220a689b0499b2ac67-- From RafiR@orckit.com Wed Jan 12 22:53:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478DF3A6AB0 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:53:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJWt0RsZjn5U for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from tlvmail1.orckit.com (tlvmail1.orckit.com [213.31.203.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D37A3A695B for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:53:10 -0800 (PST) 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 Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:54:42 +0200 Message-ID: <45A67426326F814AAC27DBEC3FC7EEC203BFC9A9@tlvmail1> In-reply-to: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqABXUP7w References: From: "Rafi Ram" To: "Giles Heron" , Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 06:53:11 -0000 Accept -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:14 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-0 3 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From ozharov@huawei.com Thu Jan 13 00:20:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006963A6AB7 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:20:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kD+3F52S8otf for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mscga02-in.huawei.com (mscga02-in.huawei.com [194.154.64.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBD03A6AB3 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 00:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (mscga02-in [172.18.16.42]) by mscga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEY00LI7CLMWV@mscga02-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:22:34 +0300 (MSK) Received: from z00722983 ([10.198.14.216]) by mscga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEY006I7CLMRF@mscga02-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:22:34 +0300 (MSK) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:22:33 +0300 From: Oleg Zharov Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? In-reply-to: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127B4C02AA@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> To: "'Key, Raymond W'" , 'Giles Heron' , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <000001cbb2fb$0726cd70$15746850$@com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: ru Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqABR8gEAAAhr5lA= References: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127B4C02AA@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:20:14 -0000 Accept --- Kind regards, Oleg -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: Wednesday, 12 January 2011 12:14 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From ahenig@mrv.com Thu Jan 13 02:01:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CB33A6AE3 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:01:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0o0voj-fE6Df for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx6.mrv.com (mx6.mrv.com [66.43.110.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450D13A6ABA for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:01:36 -0800 (PST) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1294913037-5dc191b60001-8Ltjtr Received: from chmailsrv.int.mrv.com (chmailsrv.int.mrv.com [192.168.11.19]) by mx6.mrv.com with ESMTP id WjGNuUejKyRdNWBA; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:03:57 -0800 (PST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: ahenig@mrv.com X-ASG-Whitelist: Client Received: from zeus.yok.int.mrv.com ([172.21.9.11]) by chmailsrv.int.mrv.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:06:29 -0800 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-Barracuda-BBL-IP: 172.21.9.11 X-Barracuda-RBL-IP: 172.21.9.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:06:24 +0200 Message-ID: <685D66DF6DB563459D23ECD8B30C73A4033F87D0@zeus.yok.int.mrv.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqABeAaow From: "Asaf Henig" To: "Giles Heron" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jan 2011 10:06:29.0271 (UTC) FILETIME=[8BDBDA70:01CBB309] X-Barracuda-Connect: chmailsrv.int.mrv.com[192.168.11.19] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1294913037 X-Barracuda-URL: http://spam.mrv.com:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at mrv.com Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:01:37 -0000 Accept Asaf Henig Carrier Ethernet Product Manager | MRV communications Mobile: +972-549936289 Office: +972-4-9936289 email_signature twitter.png * =C2=A0 -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:14 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-0 3 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5782 (20110112) __________ =0D=0AThe message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5782 (20110112) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Jan 14 00:58:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DF83A6BB5 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:58:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ysk7VjSDhwyC for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:58:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1651C3A6B64 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:58:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0E90MkW028924; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:00:22 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0E90LGg028919; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:00:22 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <20110114084501.24039.40951.idtracker@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20110114084501.24039.40951.idtracker@localhost> Subject: FW: I-D Action:draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-00.txt Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:00:22 -0000 Message-ID: <066a01cbb3c9$7a47df00$6ed79d00$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFDhWOfU7qKv4rEAUCMsS/DkJxaK5Tghr7g Content-Language: en-gb Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:58:04 -0000 Hi, Just wanted to check that you are aware of RFC 5252. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > Sent: 14 January 2011 08:45 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action:draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-00.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > Title : Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using IS-IS > Author(s) : X. Xu > Filename : draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-00.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2011-01-14 > > This document describes a light-weight Virtual Private LAN Service > (VPLS) using IS-IS for auto-discovery and signaling. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. From xuxh@huawei.com Fri Jan 14 02:02:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2859B3A6A0D; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 02:02:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WbSFGl-J1xQ2; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 02:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0063A69EF; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 02:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LF000JIRBULJU@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:01:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LF00037LBUL9E@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:01:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LF0009H6BUKO4@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:01:33 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:07:32 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: fwd: New Version Notification for draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-00 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <002401cbb3d2$dbe98750$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcuzxlO9ykfWtOPkQ9a7aKeXACIjrwADEgcg Cc: isis-wg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:02:02 -0000 Hi all,=20 IS-IS VPLS draft is submitted (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis) Any comment is welcome. BR Xiaohu -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: IETF I-D Submission Tool = [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org]=20 =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C214=C8=D5 16:35 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: xuxh@huawei.com =D6=F7=CC=E2: New Version Notification for draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-00 A new version of I-D, draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-00.txt has been = successfully submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis Revision: 00 Title: Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using IS-IS Creation_date: 2011-01-14 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 9 Abstract: This document describes a light-weight Virtual Private LAN Service=20 (VPLS) using IS-IS for auto-discovery and signaling. =20 The IETF Secretariat. From y.kamite@ntt.com Sun Jan 16 17:22:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D253A6BA2 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:22:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Brm5bruv9G3 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgw3.noc.ntt.com (mgw3.noc.ntt.com [210.160.15.14]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910543A6E40 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 17:22:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mop3.noc.ntt.com by mgw3.noc.ntt.com (NTT-Com MailSV) with ESMTP id p0H1Or08019192; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:24:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from mip02.noc.ntt.com (mvi2.noc.ntt.com) by mop3.noc.ntt.com (NTT-Com MailSV) with ESMTP id <0LF5008LD7XBL1@ntt.com>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:24:53 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:24:47 +0900 From: "Yuji KAMITE" Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? In-reply-to: To: "'Giles Heron'" , l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <022801cbb5e5$54887b80$fd997280$%kamite@ntt.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: ja Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thread-index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqAEU6H3A References: Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 01:22:26 -0000 Accept. Thanks, Yuji > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:14 PM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com > Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? > > This is a poll to ask if: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. > > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) > > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles From chen.ran@zte.com.cn Sun Jan 16 18:16:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCDFB3A6E68 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:16:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.016, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nUkoJh1BOVzZ for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:16:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [63.218.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE3E3A67C0 for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:16:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.34.0.130] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 3510577109098; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:16:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 2214.2988296938; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:11:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p0H2IZWv083869; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:18:35 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn) To: Raymond Key , Simon Delord , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:18:18 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-01-17 10:18:36, Serialize complete at 2011-01-17 10:18:36 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000CD9D54825781B_=" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn p0H2IZWv083869 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 02:16:18 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 000CD9D54825781B_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Accept. Regards, chen --=_alternative 000CD9D54825781B_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Accept.

Regards,
chen --=_alternative 000CD9D54825781B_=-- From cesar.garridosanahuja@telefonica.es Tue Jan 18 01:33:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484B93A6ED0 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:33:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.966 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y6KoznE1r6bZ for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from 28SBHC11.telefonica.es (mail2.telefonica.es [194.224.58.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585AD3A6DAA for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:33:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? To: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0.2 CCH4 January 30, 2008 Message-ID: From: cesar.garridosanahuja@telefonica.es Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:35:32 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on 28SBHC11/SRV/PASARELA_EMAIL(Release 7.0.4FP1 HF103|October 19, 2009) at 18/01/2011 10:35:38 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:33:02 -0000 Accept. Regards, C=E9sar Garrido.= From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Tue Jan 18 12:30:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D7828C1C6; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:30:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.811 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.811 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.734, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gk0NxuoQqMuj; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfcpa.amsl.com [64.170.98.47]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAF528C1D1; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 4A9F3E0741; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:32:56 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 6074 on Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs) From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110118203256.4A9F3E0741@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 12:32:56 -0800 (PST) Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:30:19 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6074 Title: Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs) Author: E. Rosen, B. Davie, V. Radoaca, W. Luo Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: January 2011 Mailbox: erosen@cisco.com, bsd@cisco.com, vasile.radoaca@alcatel-lucent.com, luo@weiluo.net Pages: 32 Characters: 76543 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-08.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6074.txt Provider Provisioned Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs) may have different "provisioning models", i.e., models for what information needs to be configured in what entities. Once configured, the provisioning information is distributed by a "discovery process". When the discovery process is complete, a signaling protocol is automatically invoked to set up the mesh of pseudowires (PWs) that form the (virtual) backbone of the L2VPN. This document specifies a number of L2VPN provisioning models, and further specifies the semantic structure of the endpoint identifiers required by each model. It discusses the distribution of these identifiers by the discovery process, especially when discovery is based on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). It then specifies how the endpoint identifiers are carried in the two signaling protocols that are used to set up PWs, the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), and the Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol version 3 (L2TPv3). [STANDARDS- TRACK] This document is a product of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com Wed Jan 19 06:01:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9E93A6F30; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:01:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id odtP5p87BPYr; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from usaga03-in.huawei.com (usaga03-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B843A712B; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (usaga03-in [172.18.4.17]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LF900547WFBZN@usaga03-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:04:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LF900JX1WF9G9@usaga03-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:04:23 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:04:20 +0000 From: Adrian Farrel Subject: Proposed liaison response on ITU-T Optical transport Network Work Plan To: mpls@ietf.org, 'CCAMP' , pce@ietf.org Message-id: <070501cbb7e1$c6436020$52ca2060$@huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-gb Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: Acu34bm7+lB0frMlTquX736g5RjMjQ== X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:26:15 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, itu-t-liaisons@iab.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:01:45 -0000 Hi, We received a liaison "SG15 OTNT standardization work plan" which you can see at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file1054.pdf The document they would like us to review is "Draft Revised Optical Transport Networks & Technologies Standardization Work Plan, Issue 13" visible at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file1055.pdf The liaison is addressed CCAMP, PCE, and MPLS, but it falls to me as liaison on the Optical Control Plane to respond. I am copying this email to BFD, OPSAWG, PWE3, and L2VPN as those WGs are explicitly mentioned in the document. A response is requested by February 1, 2011. Here is a draft of what I plan to send. Please send me any comments by January 28. Thanks, Adrian === The IETF thanks you for your liaison COM15-LS204-E received on 2010-06-24 titled "SG15 OTNT standardization work plan", and thanks you for sharing your plans. We have reviewed the document and have a number of comments. In general, it is becoming less and less clear that the title of this document is accurate! SG15 now embraces a number of non-optical transport technologies including Ethernet and MPLS-TP. Although those packet-based technologies can be transmitted over optical links, they are not limited to that medium. Maybe your document should be titled "Transport Networks & Technologies Standardization Work Plan" or maybe you should remove the non-optical material. The scope text in Section 5 and 5.1 might also need revision. The IETF has not position of this, but simply draws the matter to your attention. Table 5-1 We would like to suggest the inclusion of the MPLS Working Group in this table as that working group is responsible for many elements of the support of Ethernet "carrier-class" pseudowires over MPLS and MPLS-TP networks. Section 5.6.1 begins: "MPLS OAM was originally standardized by ITU-T SG13 (Q.5/13)." Although the section goes on to list IETF standardization of MPLS OAM, it may be considered that this first sentence implies that the ITU-T developed MPLS OAM before any MPLS OAM had been developed within the IETF. This would, of course, be a misrepresentation. Therefore, we suggest that you change this first sentence to read: "Within the ITU-T, MPLS OAM was originally standardized by SG13 (Q.5/13)." Table 5-3 Architectural Aspects of MPLS-TP Add RFC 5921, RFC 5950, RFC 5960 Equipment Functional Characteristics of MPLS-TP Add RFC 5960 OAM and Protection Switching of MPLS-TP Add RFC 5860 Management Aspects of MPLS Add RFC 4221 Management Aspects of MPLS-TP Add RFC 5950, RFC 5951 Performance of ATM Add RFC 3116 Performance of MPLS Add RFC 5695 Table 7-1-2 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework is now RFC 5921 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req is now RFC 5951 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk reached revision -06 and has been approved for publication as an RFC draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework reached revision -10 and has been approved for publication as an RFC draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework is now RFC 5950 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone has reached revision -03 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane is now RFC 5960 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers has reached revision -03 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv is now abandoned draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-cp-framework has reached revision -05 Further relevant Internet-Drafts and RFCs can be found at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mpls http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pwe3 http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/bfd http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/pce Table 7-4-2 draft-ietf-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf is now RFC 5787 Table 7-8 should inherit changes to Table 7-1-2 and be updated according to the document status available at the IETF working group pages as listed above. Table 8-1 entry 3. Please be aware of the work on impairment-aware routing in the CCAMP and PCE working groups. (It may be your intention that this is covered under entry 5.) Annex A might usefully refer readers to RFC 4397 and draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone that provide terminology mapping and have been jointly developed by IETF and ITU-T experts. We would welcome it if you shared any future revisions of this work plan with us. Adrian Farrel IETF Liaison to the IETF on the Optical Control Plane Routing Area Director From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Jan 21 05:12:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71883A696B for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:12:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27H+SutyWUtn for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:12:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92AC3A6918 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:12:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so888557ewy.31 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:15:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:thread-index:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3QJoOXP36o0Z67G5f5+OVkXYqNswNZl5XHdiOmN/lBI=; b=w0D1ij55MWHwfRdX3vBYw21ORACIPdeqgkbJeUF0zinJBTxyIrYLSVDeCRb5CfatCl qvO0PULGPOQ5enyf6TmY5IX7Rgsyt5ODZEBPEHz4BYqbtRyHZjCgJ+8OBLM5f/3EHMGj ihPw4YEPChrPgcOV7/iMkxoa/RAr3TU2cSAGs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=NER9OCwTK3m9bn213Nd5Wwb0Tm47om4632QFYlWMVCHM58EQJZS/i1it3W58Vol5KS 116loeVgHe7IlJv0SunPujkqSsDmB2VMB9B0Ktp7ASJD8BL7PXbPcZod1PCKtS41Y67i fweVcObo4YhsIny7ulkLXz5uo4vT5pyCkL130= Received: by 10.213.22.142 with SMTP id n14mr856781ebb.57.1295615707452; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.55.86.53] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u1sm7482034eeh.4.2011.01.21.05.15.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:15:05 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:15:38 +0000 Subject: VPWS I/W OAM From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: VPWS I/W OAM Thread-Index: Acu5bUuIesnxyOSUCkCl83Xop6DGMQ== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:12:23 -0000 We're looking at the current list of L2VPN WG milestones, and trying to clean them up a bit before we add further milestones as part of re-chartering (hopefully before next IETF). One item that we have on the list of milestones is "Submit OAM solutions for VPWS to IESG". There's an expired WG draft which seems to address this milestone: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpws-iw-oam-01 Is the consensus of the Working Group that: A) the milestone is still valid and B) that this draft is the correct approach? Nabil & Giles From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Fri Jan 21 06:07:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684843A6992 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:07:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.837 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.762, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 86eYUht79uNu for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:07:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756223A68E5 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:07:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (unknown [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A3A18E0CD6; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:09:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: VPWS I/W OAM Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:09:46 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0780796B-0958-4773-8030-48DE0A858648@lucidvision.com> References: To: Giles Heron X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:07:02 -0000 In a nutshell, the draft is basically the VPWS version of the = OAM Message Mapping draft that is in last call=20 needed some minor updates: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map/ What I'd suggest we do is go back through the draft to make sure = that its still aligned with the oam-msg-map draft given that it currently references version -04 of = oam-msg-map draft and we are up to=20 version 14, but I believe that the problems it is trying to solve are = still valid, and so the document is=20 still useful. I'll be the first to admit that it has been sitting around = for too long and needs=20 to be wrapped up! --Tom On Jan 21, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Giles Heron wrote: > We're looking at the current list of L2VPN WG milestones, and trying = to > clean them up a bit before we add further milestones as part of > re-chartering (hopefully before next IETF). >=20 > One item that we have on the list of milestones is "Submit OAM = solutions for > VPWS to IESG". There's an expired WG draft which seems to address = this > milestone: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpws-iw-oam-01 >=20 > Is the consensus of the Working Group that: > A) the milestone is still valid and > B) that this draft is the correct approach? >=20 > Nabil & Giles >=20 >=20 >=20 From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Jan 21 06:46:39 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC083A69F4 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:46:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.08 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.519, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dwtrnc4eHGun for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:46:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D163A69F3 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:46:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so934961eyd.31 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UlDXhi5CkiohKH843tBx9sXdJ4s5ZmuCnN2SZuolS+Y=; b=l7bpWUxqDh23cpXHoiPiV3oE7ugKwS4JK2+FR2W+eNoReFYaY+OUuFmM0HyRVn4/7t kB9HaJfh6e7Vt3NuHSiPZy2Nqzu1ARFJDqGR7Bkj/0/qYku/MnJ7sGREPm3Yad1uqG3V FjbVz86bzvDFmExz28dzkaWMVFhCeUFBNwbNA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=CLFUDF1NfzRpQruRg7vPU27juCGgCHUrqG+lHE9LsYZ8qt8fB6Y5kdsdeGuGPbqNLV SkO2Pnii+Wj0gwd6bZjz5JiGKg1Y35Lc5jN7NimamF+3iz9Umsldmg9MGDgZ4f18Bc4U feQ0VodPcHwgWUrWe629ZOMb/KtXw2/bZIASM= Received: by 10.213.27.136 with SMTP id i8mr1037166ebc.11.1295621363469; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:49:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.55.86.53] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t12sm1191796eeh.3.2011.01.21.06.49.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:49:22 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:49:59 +0000 Subject: Re: VPWS I/W OAM From: Giles Heron To: Thomas Nadeau Message-ID: Thread-Topic: VPWS I/W OAM Thread-Index: Acu5ennA5ItsWgu8HUS/KW192pLUyQ== In-Reply-To: <0780796B-0958-4773-8030-48DE0A858648@lucidvision.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:46:40 -0000 Isn't the key difference that OAM message mapping is for homogeneous PWEs and VPWS I/W OAM is for heterogeneous ones? (that's certainly what section 3 of the VPWS I/W OAM draft seems to say). But yes, there are likely to be alignment issues given how many revisions we've had of the OAM message mapping draft. One key area that will need addressing is Ethernet OAM. The VPWS I/W OAM draft pre-dates much of the Ethernet OAM work. Section 6.3.1 states: PE1 enters the AC forward defect state if any of the following conditions are met: (i) A physical layer alarm is detected on the Ethernet interface. I'd expect we'd want to expand that list. Giles On 21/01/2011 14:09, "Thomas Nadeau" wrote: > > In a nutshell, the draft is basically the VPWS version of the OAM Message > Mapping draft that is in last call > needed some minor updates: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map/ > > What I'd suggest we do is go back through the draft to make sure that its > still aligned with > the oam-msg-map draft given that it currently references version -04 of > oam-msg-map draft and we are up to > version 14, but I believe that the problems it is trying to solve are still > valid, and so the document is > still useful. I'll be the first to admit that it has been sitting around for > too long and needs > to be wrapped up! > > --Tom > > > > On Jan 21, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Giles Heron wrote: > >> We're looking at the current list of L2VPN WG milestones, and trying to >> clean them up a bit before we add further milestones as part of >> re-chartering (hopefully before next IETF). >> >> One item that we have on the list of milestones is "Submit OAM solutions for >> VPWS to IESG". There's an expired WG draft which seems to address this >> milestone: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpws-iw-oam-01 >> >> Is the consensus of the Working Group that: >> A) the milestone is still valid and >> B) that this draft is the correct approach? >> >> Nabil & Giles >> >> >> > From neil.2.harrison@bt.com Fri Jan 21 07:29:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9BB3A6A0A for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:29:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.83 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.83 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.861, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vl7LmHPh31jg for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:29:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtp63.intersmtp.COM [62.239.224.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9FE3A6A09 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:28:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from EVMHT62-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.128) by RDW083A007ED63.smtp-e3.hygiene.service (10.187.98.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.106.1; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:31:45 +0000 Received: from EMV62-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([169.254.1.142]) by EVMHT62-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([10.36.3.128]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:31:45 +0000 From: To: , Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:31:43 +0000 Subject: RE: VPWS I/W OAM Thread-Topic: VPWS I/W OAM Thread-Index: Acu5ennA5ItsWgu8HUS/KW192pLUyQAA65PQ Message-ID: <6D3D47CB84BDE349BC23BF1C94E316E44011C54076@EMV62-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> References: <0780796B-0958-4773-8030-48DE0A858648@lucidvision.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:29:01 -0000 Hi Giles/Tom, I have not looked at any of this stuff for while but there should not be an= y attempt to map OAM Forward Defect Indication messages (DP or otherwise - = sometime known as AIS in the co-cs mode): - from any client to any server (any client or server mode/technology cases= ), ie downwards - between non-TOS peer clients.....indeed there should not be any peering n= ecessary between any non-TOS layer networks or (ii) different technologies,= esp if NOT the same mode, where at least one technology is non-TOS. So al= l PWs, Ethernet and MPLS technologies fall into one of these classes. The worst case example of this I have seen is the one Maarten has been tryi= ng to promote wrt Ethernet and MPLS OAM interworking. The only viable server->client upward FDI case is wrt to a regular time-sli= ce co-cs mode layer network....this is forced because labelling AND resourc= e assignment (=3D=3D> fixed duration in time =3D=3D> fixed no. of bits) are= coupled......so a dead timeslot MUST be filled with something. Doing anything different to this is generating functional coupling between = layer networks that should not have it. Each layer network technology shou= ld look after itself wrt OAM. =20 regards, Neil > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org]=20 > On Behalf Of Giles Heron > Sent: 21 January 2011 14:50 > To: Thomas Nadeau > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: VPWS I/W OAM >=20 > Isn't the key difference that OAM message mapping is for=20 > homogeneous PWEs and VPWS I/W OAM is for heterogeneous ones? =20 > (that's certainly what section > 3 of the VPWS I/W OAM draft seems to say). >=20 > But yes, there are likely to be alignment issues given how=20 > many revisions we've had of the OAM message mapping draft. >=20 > One key area that will need addressing is Ethernet OAM. The=20 > VPWS I/W OAM draft pre-dates much of the Ethernet OAM work. =20 > Section 6.3.1 states: >=20 > PE1 enters the AC forward defect state if any of the following > conditions are met: >=20 > (i) A physical layer alarm is detected on the Ethernet > interface. >=20 > I'd expect we'd want to expand that list. >=20 > Giles >=20 > On 21/01/2011 14:09, "Thomas Nadeau" wrote: >=20 > >=20 > > In a nutshell, the draft is basically the VPWS version of the OAM=20 > > Message Mapping draft that is in last call needed some=20 > minor updates: > >=20 > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map/ > >=20 > > What I'd suggest we do is go back through the draft to make=20 > sure that=20 > > its still aligned with the oam-msg-map draft given that it=20 > currently=20 > > references version -04 of oam-msg-map draft and we are up=20 > to version=20 > > 14, but I believe that the problems it is trying to solve are still=20 > > valid, and so the document is still useful. I'll be the=20 > first to admit=20 > > that it has been sitting around for too long and needs to=20 > be wrapped=20 > > up! > >=20 > > --Tom > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > On Jan 21, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Giles Heron wrote: > >=20 > >> We're looking at the current list of L2VPN WG milestones,=20 > and trying=20 > >> to clean them up a bit before we add further milestones as part of=20 > >> re-chartering (hopefully before next IETF). > >>=20 > >> One item that we have on the list of milestones is "Submit OAM=20 > >> solutions for VPWS to IESG". There's an expired WG draft=20 > which seems=20 > >> to address this > >> milestone: > >>=20 > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpws-iw-oam-01 > >>=20 > >> Is the consensus of the Working Group that: > >> A) the milestone is still valid and > >> B) that this draft is the correct approach? > >>=20 > >> Nabil & Giles > >>=20 > >>=20 > >>=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > = From mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Jan 21 09:03:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDC928C0E3 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:03:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.338 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.338 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.816, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UmOb5BmgwtfW for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E583A6A61 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:03:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p0LH5vsr012401 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:05:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.112]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p0LH5ul7006892 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:05:56 -0600 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.147]) by USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.112]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:05:56 -0600 From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" To: Giles Heron , Thomas Nadeau Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:05:55 -0600 Subject: RE: VPWS I/W OAM Thread-Topic: VPWS I/W OAM Thread-Index: Acu5ennA5ItsWgu8HUS/KW192pLUyQAEIMRw Message-ID: <5DF53972F7E9134782DCE51624466FE50ACFF83A0E@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <0780796B-0958-4773-8030-48DE0A858648@lucidvision.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:03:13 -0000 Dear all, I agree we need to revisit this draft but I think we can keep it short and = refer to the detailed procedures in draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-14.txt whic= h has undergone a thourough clean up thanks to the review comments from the= PWE3 WG, the AD's and the IESG.=20 And yes Ethernet AC should be added for completeness. Again we can refer to= detailed procedures in draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk. Mustapha. -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 9:50 AM To: Thomas Nadeau Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: VPWS I/W OAM Isn't the key difference that OAM message mapping is for homogeneous PWEs a= nd VPWS I/W OAM is for heterogeneous ones? (that's certainly what section 3 of the VPWS I/W OAM draft seems to say). But yes, there are likely to be alignment issues given how many revisions w= e've had of the OAM message mapping draft. One key area that will need addressing is Ethernet OAM. The VPWS I/W OAM d= raft pre-dates much of the Ethernet OAM work. Section 6.3.1 states: PE1 enters the AC forward defect state if any of the following conditions are met: (i) A physical layer alarm is detected on the Ethernet interface. I'd expect we'd want to expand that list. Giles On 21/01/2011 14:09, "Thomas Nadeau" wrote: >=20 > In a nutshell, the draft is basically the VPWS version of the OAM=20 > Message Mapping draft that is in last call needed some minor updates: >=20 > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map/ >=20 > What I'd suggest we do is go back through the draft to make sure that=20 > its still aligned with the oam-msg-map draft given that it currently=20 > references version -04 of oam-msg-map draft and we are up to version=20 > 14, but I believe that the problems it is trying to solve are still=20 > valid, and so the document is still useful. I'll be the first to admit=20 > that it has been sitting around for too long and needs to be wrapped=20 > up! >=20 > --Tom >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Jan 21, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Giles Heron wrote: >=20 >> We're looking at the current list of L2VPN WG milestones, and trying=20 >> to clean them up a bit before we add further milestones as part of=20 >> re-chartering (hopefully before next IETF). >>=20 >> One item that we have on the list of milestones is "Submit OAM=20 >> solutions for VPWS to IESG". There's an expired WG draft which seems=20 >> to address this >> milestone: >>=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpws-iw-oam-01 >>=20 >> Is the consensus of the Working Group that: >> A) the milestone is still valid and >> B) that this draft is the correct approach? >>=20 >> Nabil & Giles >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 From xuxh@huawei.com Sun Jan 23 23:03:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62603A6A7B for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:03:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.812, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qPhuQ827hnb5 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1743A6A75 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LFI0073ZMA05W@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:03:37 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LFI00I36MA03X@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:03:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LFI008BGMA09C@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:03:36 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:09:53 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: fwd: New Version Notification for draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <004601cbbb95$b2fd3150$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: Acu7fWWYYwbCsTFjS7a3dDyqAH0mcwAFujDQ X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 07:03:24 -0000 Hi all, An updated version of Virtual Subnet (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04) has been = submitted. One major change is to describe the inter-subnet communication mechanism = in more details, especially in the case where VRRP is deployed in the CE network. For more details, please see http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=3D--hwdiff&url2=3Ddraft-xu-virtual= -subnet -04.txt Any comments are welcome. Best wishes, Xiaohu -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: IETF I-D Submission Tool = [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org]=20 =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C224=C8=D5 12:13 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: xuxh@huawei.com =D6=F7=CC=E2: New Version Notification for draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04 A new version of I-D, draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04.txt has been = successfully submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-xu-virtual-subnet Revision: 04 Title: Virtual Subnet: A Scalable Data Center Network Architecture Creation_date: 2011-01-24 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 13 Abstract: This document proposes a new IP-only L2VPN solution which uses=20 BGP/MPLS IP VPN technology [RFC4364] with some extensions, together=20 with some other proven technologies including ARP proxy=20 [RFC925][RFC1027] to provide a more scalable IP-only L2VPN services=20 across a MPLS/IP backbone. This solution is intended to be a=20 scalable data center network architecture which can be deployed=20 today as an alternative to the spanning tree protocol bridge=20 technology. =20 The IETF Secretariat. From Manuel.Paul@telekom.de Tue Jan 25 02:34:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578483A6838 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:34:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id McNzfMlV3h-C for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF5F3A6A74 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:34:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from s4de9jsaano.mgb.telekom.de (HELO S4DE9JSAANO.ost.t-com.de) ([10.125.177.105]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2011 11:36:30 +0100 Received: from S4DE9JSAANI.ost.t-com.de ([10.125.177.223]) by S4DE9JSAANO.ost.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:36:29 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:36:29 +0100 Message-ID: <40FB0FFB97588246A1BEFB05759DC8A0051F60B3@S4DE9JSAANI.ost.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? thread-index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqAK6jBzg References: From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2011 10:36:29.0878 (UTC) FILETIME=[BA0FAD60:01CBBC7B] Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:34:11 -0000 QWNjZXB0Lg0KDQoNCkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcyANCk1hbnVlbCBQYXVsIA0KDQpEZXV0c2NoZSBUZWxl a29tIEFHIA0KR3JvdXAgVGVjaG5vbG9neSANCk1hbnVlbCBQYXVsDQpHb3NsYXJlciBVZmVyIDM1 LCAxMDU4OSBCZXJsaW4NCis0OSAzMCAzNDk3LTQzOTQgKFBob25lKQ0KKzQ5IDMwIDM0OTctNDk1 NiAoRmF4KQ0KKzQ5IDE3MSA4NjM0MDMywqAgKE1vYmlsZSkgDQpFLU1haWw6IE1hbnVlbC5QYXVs QHRlbGVrb20uZGUgDQp3d3cudGVsZWtvbS5jb23CoMKgwqAgDQpMaWZlIGlzIGZvciBzaGFyaW5n LiANCsKgIA0KRGV1dHNjaGUgVGVsZWtvbSBBRyANClN1cGVydmlzb3J5IEJvYXJkOiBQcm9mLiBE ci4gVWxyaWNoIExlaG5lciAoQ2hhaXJtYW4pIA0KQm9hcmQgb2YgTWFuYWdlbWVudDogUmVuw6kg T2Jlcm1hbm4gKENoYWlybWFuKSwNCkRyLiBNYW5mcmVkIEJhbHosIFJlaW5oYXJkIENsZW1lbnMs IE5pZWsgSmFuIHZhbiBEYW1tZSwNClRpbW90aGV1cyBIw7Z0dGdlcywgR3VpZG8gS2Vya2hvZmYs IEVkd2FyZCBSLiBLb3plbCwgVGhvbWFzIFNhdHRlbGJlcmdlciANCkNvbW1lcmNpYWwgcmVnaXN0 ZXI6IEFtdHNnZXJpY2h0IEJvbm4gSFJCIDY3OTQgDQpSZWdpc3RlcmVkIG9mZmljZTogQm9ubiAN CldFRUUgcmVnLiBuby4gREU1MDQ3ODM3NiANClZBVCBpZGVudGlmaWNhdGlvbiBuby4gREUgMTIz NDc1MjIzIA0KQmlnIGNoYW5nZXMgc3RhcnQgc21hbGwg4oCTIGNvbnNlcnZlIHJlc291cmNlcyBi eSBub3QgcHJpbnRpbmcgZXZlcnkgZS1tYWlsLiANCg0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2Fn ZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IGwydnBuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpsMnZwbi1ib3Vu Y2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YNCj4gR2lsZXMgSGVyb24NCj4gU2VudDogVHVlc2Rh eSwgSmFudWFyeSAxMSwgMjAxMSAyOjE0IFBNDQo+IFRvOiBsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBDYzog ZnJlZGVyaWMuam91bmF5QG9yYW5nZS1mdGdyb3VwLmNvbQ0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBkcmFmdC1kZWxv cmQtbDJ2cG4tbGRwLXZwbHMtYnJvYWRjYXN0LWV4dGVuIGFzIFdHIGRyYWZ0Pw0KPiANCj4gVGhp cyBpcyBhIHBvbGwgdG8gYXNrIGlmOg0KPiANCj4gaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwv ZHJhZnQtZGVsb3JkLWwydnBuLWxkcC12cGxzLWJyb2FkY2FzdC1leHRlbi0wMw0KPiANCj4gc2hv dWxkIGJlIGFjY2VwdGVkIGFzIGFuIEwyVlBOIFdHIGRyYWZ0Lg0KPiANCj4gUGxlYXNlIHJlcGx5 ICJhY2NlcHQiIG9yICJkbyBub3QgYWNjZXB0IiB0byB0aGlzIHRocmVhZC4NCj4gDQo+IFBsZWFz ZSBzdGFydCBhIG5ldyB0aHJlYWQgZm9yIGFueSB0ZWNobmljYWwgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgb2YgdGhl IGRyYWZ0Lg0KPiBXZSdkDQo+IHJlYWxseSBsaWtlIHRvIHNlZSBzb21lIHRlY2huaWNhbCBkaXNj dXNzaW9ucyA6KQ0KPiANCj4gV2Ugd2lsbCBjbG9zZSB0aGUgcG9sbCBvbiBUdWVzZGF5IDI1dGgg SmFudWFyeSAyMDExLg0KPiANCj4gVGhhbmtzIQ0KPiANCj4gTmFiaWwgJiBHaWxlcw0KPiANCg0K From frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com Tue Jan 25 03:00:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066B93A6830 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 03:00:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NB-bsQ4-c8je for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:59:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A108A3A69E1 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:59:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 21801778001; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:07:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A853760001; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:07:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:52:35 +0100 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 Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:52:33 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <40FB0FFB97588246A1BEFB05759DC8A0051F60B3@S4DE9JSAANI.ost.t-com.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqAK6jBzgAACNSkA= References: <40FB0FFB97588246A1BEFB05759DC8A0051F60B3@S4DE9JSAANI.ost.t-com.de> From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2011 10:52:35.0190 (UTC) FILETIME=[F96E9960:01CBBC7D] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:00:00 -0000 Accept Fred. > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Giles Heron > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:14 PM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com > Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? >=20 > This is a poll to ask if: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten > -03 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. >=20 > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. > We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) >=20 > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Nabil & Giles >=20 From Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de Tue Jan 25 04:26:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552BD3A6AC5 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:26:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IHTGwxUyVTQJ for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:26:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail73.telekom.de (tcmail73.telekom.de [217.243.239.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0353A6A67 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:26:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from he110889.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.92.130]) by tcmail71.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 25 Jan 2011 13:28:57 +0100 Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.5.69]) by HE110889.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::841f:f92c:15ca:8526%16]) with mapi; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:28:48 +0100 From: To: Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:28:47 +0100 Subject: AW: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqAK+dRHw Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67DFA0544EE@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:26:05 -0000 accept Thomas Beckhaus > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] > Im Auftrag von Giles Heron > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Januar 2011 14:14 > An: l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com > Betreff: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? > > This is a poll to ask if: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadca st-exten-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. > > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of > the draft. We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) > > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles > > > From william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Tue Jan 25 06:00:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010493A6BBB for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:00:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.381 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZGQWYhbM61nY for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from omr16.networksolutionsemail.com (omr16.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67563A6BC3 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-omr3 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr16.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p0PE3FEV013160 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:03:17 -0500 X-Authenticated-IP: 205.178.146.50 Received: from [205.178.146.50] ([205.178.146.50:40728] helo=webmail23) by cm-omr3 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTP id 20/39-07458-328DE3D4; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:03:15 -0500 Received: from 208.55.254.110 (william.zayas@fibercrossing.net [208.55.254.110]) by webmail23 (Netsol 11.2.30) with WEBMAIL id 4402; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:03:15 +0000 From: william.zayas@fibercrossing.net To: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de, l2vpn@ietf.org Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: X-Mailer: Network Solutions Webmail, Build 11.2.30 X-Originating-IP: [208.55.254.110] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:03:15 +0000 Subject: Re: AW: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--=_vm_0011_W641693206_4402_1295964195" Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:00:22 -0000 ----=_vm_0011_W641693206_4402_1295964195 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable accept. Cheers, William -----Original Message----- From: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de [mailto:Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 07:28 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: AW: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? acceptThomas Beckhaus> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----> Von: l2vpn-bo= unces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org]> Im Auftrag von Giles Hero= n> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Januar 2011 14:14> An: l2vpn@ietf.org> Cc: fre= deric.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com> Betreff: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-bro= adcast-exten as WG draft?>> This is a poll to ask if:>> http://tools.ietf= .org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-03>> should be acce= pted as an L2VPN WG draft.>> Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to = this thread.>> Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of= > the draft. We'd> really like to see some technical discussions :)>> We = will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011.>> Thanks!>> Nabil & Gil= es>>> ----=_vm_0011_W641693206_4402_1295964195 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable accept.


Cheers,

William
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de= [mailto:Thomas.Beckhaus@telekom.de]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25,= 2011 07:28 AM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Cc: frederic.jounay= @orange-ftgroup.com
Subject: AW: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-br= oadcast-exten as WG draft?

accept Thomas Beckhaus > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] > Im Auftrag von Giles Heron > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Januar 2011 14:14 > An: l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com > Betreff: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? > > This is a poll to ask if: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadca st-exten-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. > > Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of > the draft. We'd > really like to see some technical discussions :) > > We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles > > >
----=_vm_0011_W641693206_4402_1295964195-- From trafique@above.net Tue Jan 25 06:13:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5C33A6ACE for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:13:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u9FHRL8E5vE7 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from DCAXBH00.na.above.net (dcaxbh00.na.above.net [208.184.57.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AE43A6A8E for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from IADXMB01.na.above.net ([10.1.26.8]) by DCAXBH00.na.above.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:16:05 -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 Subject: RE: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:15:59 -0500 Message-ID: <72842664A4401243BDD7FC4A70DCF73D055CCCA3@IADXMB01.na.above.net> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? Thread-Index: AcuxkXh8TBwnRONDYUWm9DiwG0eKqALCM4CQ References: From: "Rafique, Tariq" To: "Giles Heron" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2011 14:16:05.0265 (UTC) FILETIME=[67343010:01CBBC9A] Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:13:08 -0000 Accept. ++++++++++++++++++ Tariq Rafique IP Architecture AboveNet, Inc. trafique@above.net 703.657.7113=20 -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:14 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten as WG draft? This is a poll to ask if: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten-0 3 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread. Please start a new thread for any technical discussions of the draft. We'd really like to see some technical discussions :) We will close the poll on Tuesday 25th January 2011. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From prvs=4008a44417=hshah@ciena.com Thu Jan 27 10:45:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C2828C14D for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:45:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBeBJx4LzKTd for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:45:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.152.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB083A67F7 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:45:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0001124 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id p0RIeNdl022305; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:48:12 -0500 Received: from mdwexght01.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-28.ciena.com [63.118.36.28]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id u3dsfg35b-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:48:12 -0500 Received: from mdmxm05.ciena.com (63.118.39.23) by MDWEXGHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.436.0; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:48:12 -0500 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_01CBBE52.A6AA0D59" Subject: RE: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:47:28 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt Thread-Index: AcudtQ6qihChKxohTJecfYymBxbONQgnSDAQ References: From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: , X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15, 1.0.148, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-01-27_08:2011-01-27, 2011-01-27, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=100 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1101270120 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, giheron@cisco.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:45:31 -0000 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBBE52.A6AA0D59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry for late reply.. In line.. =20 =20 From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn]=20 Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:38 AM To: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; giheron@cisco.com; Shah, Himanshu Subject: Re: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt =20 Yes, support.=20 HS> Thanks =20 But have two minor comments.=20 1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what is the reserved value, 0x0000? Should be specified.=20 =20 HS> Yes and OK 2. In section 7.1, if PE withdrawS its PW label with the LDP status code meaning "IP Address type mismatch", when will the PE send the label mapping again? It is possible for the remote PE to change its configuration to IPv6 and send a new label mapping again to local PE, in this case, will the local PE be triggered to send label mapping again?=20 =20 HS> Yes. Will clarify that. =20 In previous thread, I had mentioned that in my opinion, ideally speaking this item should be covered in the base signaling draft. Irrespective, will add the verbiage. =20 Thanks, himanshu Thanks=20 Lizhong=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:11:15 -0500 > From: "Bitar, Nabil N" > Subject: [l2vpn] WG last call for > draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt > To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Cc: Giles Heron , "Shah, Himanshu" > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" >=20 > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on draft=20 > "ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN". > The draft can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- > l2vpn-arp-mediation-15 . >=20 > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working=20 > group email list. >=20 > This WG last call will close on Tuesday December 21st, 2010. >=20 > Regards, > Nabil >=20 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: archive/web/l2vpn/attachments/20101207/df019938/attachment.htm> >=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBBE52.A6AA0D59 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry for late reply..

In line..

 

 

From:= = lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn]
Sent: = Friday, December 17, 2010 1:38 AM
To: = nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; = giheron@cisco.com; Shah, Himanshu
Subject: Re: [l2vpn] WG last = call for = draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt

 


Yes, = support.

HS> Thanks

 

But have two minor comments. =
1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what = is the reserved value, 0x0000? Should be specified.

 

HS> Yes and OK


2. In section = 7.1, if PE withdrawS its PW label with the LDP status code meaning = "IP Address type mismatch", when will the PE send the label = mapping again? It is possible for the remote PE to change its = configuration to IPv6 and send a new label mapping again to local PE, in = this case, will the local PE be triggered to send label mapping = again?

 

HS> Yes. Will clarify that.  

In previous thread, I had mentioned that in my opinion, ideally = speaking this item should be covered in the base signaling = draft.

Irrespective, will add the verbiage.

 

Thanks,

himanshu



Thanks
Lizhong


> = ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, = 7 Dec 2010 09:11:15 -0500
> From: "Bitar, Nabil = N" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
> Subject: = [l2vpn] WG last call for
>   =  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt
> To: = "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
> Cc: = Giles Heron <giheron@cisco.com>, "Shah, = Himanshu"
>   =  <hshah@ciena.com>
> Message-ID: = <C923AAB3.10E11%nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
> = Content-Type: text/plain; = charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
>
> This = is the start of a two-week working group last call on draft =
> "ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 = VPN".
> The draft can be found at = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
> = l2vpn-arp-mediation-15 .
>
> Please, = review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working =
> group email list.
>
> = This WG last call will close on Tuesday December 21st, = 2010.
>
> Regards,
> = Nabil
>
> -------------- next part = --------------
> An HTML attachment was = scrubbed...
> URL: = <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> = archive/web/l2vpn/attachments/20101207/df019938/attachment.htm>>
> = ------------------------------
> = 

 
-------------=
-------------------------------------------
ZTE =
;Information Security Notice: The information co=
ntained in this mail is solely property&nbs=
p;of the sender's organization. This mail c=
ommunication is confidential. Recipients named a=
bove are obligated to maintain secrecy and&=
nbsp;are not permitted to disclose the cont=
ents of this communication to others.=

This email and any files transmitted&=
nbsp;with it are confidential and intended =
solely for the use of the individual o=
r entity to whom they are addressed. I=
f you have received this email in erro=
r please notify the originator of the =
message. Any views expressed in this messag=
e are those of the individual sender.<=
/o:p>
This message has been scanned fo=
r viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam sy=
stem.
------_=_NextPart_001_01CBBE52.A6AA0D59-- From Raymond.Key@team.telstra.com Sat Jan 29 15:49:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E6E3A68EA for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:49:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aJY11hjZPJXi for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:49:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipxavo.tcif.telstra.com.au (ipxavo.tcif.telstra.com.au [203.35.135.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714513A68DC for ; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:49:18 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,398,1291554000"; d="scan'208,217";a="23002497" Received: from unknown (HELO ipcdvi.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.217.212]) by ipoavi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2011 10:52:26 +1100 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6241"; a="17979104" Received: from wsmsg3701.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.169]) by ipcdvi.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2011 10:52:26 +1100 Received: from WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.160]) by WSMSG3701.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.169]) with mapi; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:52:25 +1100 From: "Key, Raymond W" To: "lmartini@cisco.com" Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:52:21 +1100 Subject: draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-02 Thread-Topic: draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-02 Thread-Index: AcvAD5HBmbJ7Of66TVacnv58UoLN0g== Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127C0F8537@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> Accept-Language: en-US, en-AU Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-AU Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127C0F8537WSMSG3153Vsrv_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 23:49:21 -0000 --_000_255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127C0F8537WSMSG3153Vsrv_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Luca, I read the IETF79 Beijing L2VPN minutes http://tools.ietf.org/wg/l2vpn/minutes?item=3Dminutes79.html and would like to continue the discussion re the captioned on the list. Extract from the minutes, under (7) Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in = VPLS : -Luca: Can you explain what does not work in the current solution? We can = use BGP Auto Discovery & configuration to achieve what you want. . . . . -Giles: Need to take discussion to the list. (To Luca): perhaps you can do= cument how the current solution already solves this problem to kick off tha= t discussion on the list? Would you be able to elaborate on how the current solution already solves t= his problem? Thanks, Raymond Key --_000_255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127C0F8537WSMSG3153Vsrv_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Luca,
 
I read the IETF79 Beijing L2VPN minutes
and would like to continue the discussion re the captioned on the list= .
 
Extract from the minutes, under (7) Requirements for MEF E-Tree Suppor= t in VPLS :
-Luca: Can you explain what does not work in the current solution?&nbs= p; We can use BGP Auto Discovery & configuration to achieve what you wa= nt.
. . . .
-Giles: Need to take discussion to the list.  (To Luca): perhaps = you can document how the current solution already solves this problem to ki= ck off that discussion on the list?
 
Would you be able to elaborate on how the current solution already sol= ves this problem?
 
Thanks,
Raymond Key
 
 
 --_000_255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1127C0F8537WSMSG3153Vsrv_-- From prvs=5011c8fbb8=hshah@ciena.com Sun Jan 30 11:25:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999E83A67FC for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:25:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.282 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id suFaPygBRIF0 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:25:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.152.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE653A67EB for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 11:25:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0001124 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id p0UJPpAj019237; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:27:59 -0500 Received: from mdwexght01.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-28.ciena.com [63.118.36.28]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id u5bsfgb5n-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:27:58 -0500 Received: from mdmxm05.ciena.com (63.118.39.23) by MDWEXGHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.436.0; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:27:58 -0500 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_01CBC0B3.CD2AC788" Subject: RE: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:27:57 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt Thread-Index: AcudtQ6qihChKxohTJecfYymBxbONQgnSDAQAJhR8zA= References: From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: , X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15, 1.0.148, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-01-30_06:2011-01-28, 2011-01-30, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=100 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1101300091 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, giheron@cisco.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:25:14 -0000 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBC0B3.CD2AC788 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Correction below.. =20 1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what is the reserved value, 0x0000? Should be specified.=20 =20 HS> Yes and OK Correction>> The reserved values are defined in section 8.2 (it is not zero). =20 /himanshu =20 From: Shah, Himanshu=20 Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:47 PM To: 'lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn'; nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; giheron@cisco.com Subject: RE: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt =20 Sorry for late reply.. In line.. =20 =20 From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn]=20 Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:38 AM To: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; giheron@cisco.com; Shah, Himanshu Subject: Re: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt =20 Yes, support.=20 HS> Thanks =20 But have two minor comments.=20 1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what is the reserved value, 0x0000? Should be specified.=20 =20 HS> Yes and OK 2. In section 7.1, if PE withdrawS its PW label with the LDP status code meaning "IP Address type mismatch", when will the PE send the label mapping again? It is possible for the remote PE to change its configuration to IPv6 and send a new label mapping again to local PE, in this case, will the local PE be triggered to send label mapping again?=20 =20 HS> Yes. Will clarify that. =20 In previous thread, I had mentioned that in my opinion, ideally speaking this item should be covered in the base signaling draft. Irrespective, will add the verbiage. =20 Thanks, himanshu Thanks=20 Lizhong=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:11:15 -0500 > From: "Bitar, Nabil N" > Subject: [l2vpn] WG last call for > draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt > To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Cc: Giles Heron , "Shah, Himanshu" > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" >=20 > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on draft=20 > "ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN". > The draft can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- > l2vpn-arp-mediation-15 . >=20 > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working=20 > group email list. >=20 > This WG last call will close on Tuesday December 21st, 2010. >=20 > Regards, > Nabil >=20 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: archive/web/l2vpn/attachments/20101207/df019938/attachment.htm> >=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBC0B3.CD2AC788 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Correction below..

 

1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what is the = reserved value, 0x0000? Should be specified. =

 

HS> Yes and OK


Correction>> The reserved values are defined in section 8.2 (it = is not zero).

 

/himanshu

 

From:= = Shah, Himanshu
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:47 = PM
To: 'lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn'; = nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; = giheron@cisco.com
Subject: RE: [l2vpn] WG last call for = draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt

 

Sorry for late reply..

In line..

 

 

From:= = lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn]
Sent: = Friday, December 17, 2010 1:38 AM
To: = nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; = giheron@cisco.com; Shah, Himanshu
Subject: Re: [l2vpn] WG last = call for = draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt

 


Yes, support.

HS> Thanks

 

But have two minor comments. =
1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what = is the reserved value, 0x0000? Should be specified. =

 

HS> Yes and OK


2. In section = 7.1, if PE withdrawS its PW label with the LDP status code meaning = "IP Address type mismatch", when will the PE send the label = mapping again? It is possible for the remote PE to change its = configuration to IPv6 and send a new label mapping again to local PE, in = this case, will the local PE be triggered to send label mapping = again?

 

HS> Yes. Will clarify that.  

In previous thread, I had mentioned that in my opinion, ideally = speaking this item should be covered in the base signaling = draft.

Irrespective, will add the verbiage.

 

Thanks,

himanshu



Thanks
Lizhong


> = ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, = 7 Dec 2010 09:11:15 -0500
> From: "Bitar, Nabil = N" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
> Subject: = [l2vpn] WG last call for
>   =  draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt
> To: = "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
> Cc: = Giles Heron <giheron@cisco.com>, "Shah, = Himanshu"
>   =  <hshah@ciena.com>
> Message-ID: = <C923AAB3.10E11%nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
> = Content-Type: text/plain; = charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
>
> This = is the start of a two-week working group last call on draft =
> "ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 = VPN".
> The draft can be found at = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
> = l2vpn-arp-mediation-15 .
>
> Please, = review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working =
> group email list.
>
> = This WG last call will close on Tuesday December 21st, = 2010.
>
> Regards,
> = Nabil
>
> -------------- next part = --------------
> An HTML attachment was = scrubbed...
> URL: = <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> = archive/web/l2vpn/attachments/20101207/df019938/attachment.htm>>
> = ------------------------------
> = 

 
-------------=
-------------------------------------------
ZTE =
;Information Security Notice: The information co=
ntained in this mail is solely property&nbs=
p;of the sender's organization. This mail c=
ommunication is confidential. Recipients named a=
bove are obligated to maintain secrecy and&=
nbsp;are not permitted to disclose the cont=
ents of this communication to others.=

This email and any files transmitted&=
nbsp;with it are confidential and intended =
solely for the use of the individual o=
r entity to whom they are addressed. I=
f you have received this email in erro=
r please notify the originator of the =
message. Any views expressed in this messag=
e are those of the individual sender.<=
/o:p>
This message has been scanned fo=
r viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam sy=
stem.
------_=_NextPart_001_01CBC0B3.CD2AC788-- From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Sun Jan 30 17:23:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B333A6B03 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:23:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.717 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.717 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BGiRW9Ca-Lpv for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:23:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [63.218.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0753A6916 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:23:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.34.0.130] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 3510577109098; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:24:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 96520.3037489819; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:26:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p0V1Qf5e084055; Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:26:41 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: "Shah, Himanshu" Subject: RE: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:26:02 +0800 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-01-31 09:26:41, Serialize by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-01-31 09:26:41, Serialize complete at 2011-01-31 09:26:41, S/MIME Sign failed at 2011-01-31 09:26:41: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-01-31 09:26:42, Serialize complete at 2011-01-31 09:26:42 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0007EFAC48257829_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p0V1Qf5e084055 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, giheron@cisco.com X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 01:23:43 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0007EFAC48257829_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi Himanshu, Thank you for the reply. The reserved 15 L2VPN PE stack capabilities value in section 8.2 maybe assigned by IANA in future. Then I suggest to change the sentance in section 7.1 and 7.2: "but it is set to a reserved value" to "but it is not set to IPv6 stack capability value" That would be a bit clear. Lizhong "Shah, Himanshu" wrote on 2011-01-31 03:27:57: > Correction below.. > > 1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what is the reserved value, 0x0000? > Should be specified. > > HS> Yes and OK > > Correction>> The reserved values are defined in section 8.2 (it is not zero). > > /himanshu > > From: Shah, Himanshu > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:47 PM > To: 'lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn'; nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; giheron@cisco.com > Subject: RE: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt > > Sorry for late reply.. > In line.. > > > From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn] > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:38 AM > To: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; giheron@cisco.com; Shah, Himanshu > Subject: Re: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt > > > Yes, support. > HS> Thanks > > But have two minor comments. > 1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what is the reserved value, 0x0000? > Should be specified. > > HS> Yes and OK > > 2. In section 7.1, if PE withdrawS its PW label with the LDP status > code meaning "IP Address type mismatch", when will the PE send the > label mapping again? It is possible for the remote PE to change its > configuration to IPv6 and send a new label mapping again to local > PE, in this case, will the local PE be triggered to send label mapping again? > > HS> Yes. Will clarify that. > In previous thread, I had mentioned that in my opinion, ideally > speaking this item should be covered in the base signaling draft. > Irrespective, will add the verbiage. > > Thanks, > himanshu > > > Thanks > Lizhong > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:11:15 -0500 > > From: "Bitar, Nabil N" > > Subject: [l2vpn] WG last call for > > draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt > > To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > > Cc: Giles Heron , "Shah, Himanshu" > > > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on draft > > "ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN". > > The draft can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf- > > l2vpn-arp-mediation-15 . > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working > > group email list. > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday December 21st, 2010. > > > > Regards, > > Nabil > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > archive/web/l2vpn/attachments/20101207/df019938/attachment.htm> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this > mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail > communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated > to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents > of this communication to others. > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please > notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this > message are those of the individual sender. > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 0007EFAC48257829_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi Himanshu,
Thank you for the reply.
The reserved 15 L2VPN PE stack capabilities value in section 8.2 maybe assigned by IANA in future.
Then I suggest to change the sentance in section 7.1 and 7.2:
"but it is set to a reserved value" to "but it is not set to IPv6 stack capability value"
That would be a bit clear.

Lizhong


"Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com> wrote on 2011-01-31 03:27:57:

> Correction below..
>  
> 1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what is the reserved value, 0x0000?
> Should be specified.
>  
> HS> Yes and OK
>
> Correction>> The reserved values are defined in section 8.2 (it is not zero).
>  
> /himanshu
>  
> From: Shah, Himanshu
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:47 PM
> To: 'lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn'; nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; giheron@cisco.com
> Subject: RE: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt
>  
> Sorry for late reply..
> In line..
>  
>  
> From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn]
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:38 AM
> To: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; giheron@cisco.com; Shah, Himanshu
> Subject: Re: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt
>  
>
> Yes, support.
> HS> Thanks
>  
> But have two minor comments.
> 1. In section 7.1 and 7.2, what is the reserved value, 0x0000?
> Should be specified.
>  
> HS> Yes and OK
>
> 2. In section 7.1, if PE withdrawS its PW label with the LDP status
> code meaning "IP Address type mismatch", when will the PE send the
> label mapping again? It is possible for the remote PE to change its
> configuration to IPv6 and send a new label mapping again to local
> PE, in this case, will the local PE be triggered to send label mapping again?
>  
> HS> Yes. Will clarify that.  
> In previous thread, I had mentioned that in my opinion, ideally
> speaking this item should be covered in the base signaling draft.
> Irrespective, will add the verbiage.
>  
> Thanks,
> himanshu
>
>
> Thanks
> Lizhong
>
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:11:15 -0500
> > From: "Bitar, Nabil N" <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
> > Subject: [l2vpn] WG last call for
> >    draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-15.txt
> > To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
> > Cc: Giles Heron <giheron@cisco.com>, "Shah, Himanshu"
> >    <hshah@ciena.com>
> > Message-ID: <C923AAB3.10E11%nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on draft
> > "ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN".
> > The draft can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
> > l2vpn-arp-mediation-15 .
> >
> > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working
> > group email list.
> >
> > This WG last call will close on Tuesday December 21st, 2010.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nabil
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> > archive/web/l2vpn/attachments/20101207/df019938/attachment.htm>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this
> mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail
> communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated
> to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents
> of this communication to others.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
> notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this
> message are those of the individual sender.
> This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 0007EFAC48257829_=--