From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Feb 2 21:33:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F2821F86C9; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:33:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lLN3qMpqFfp; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:33:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C34C21F86C4; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 21:33:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-10.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120203053335.19109.2700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:33:35 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:33:36 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Multicast in VPLS Author(s) : Rahul Aggarwal Juniper Networks Yuji Kamite Luyuan Fang Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-10.txt Pages : 46 Date : 2012-02-02 This document describes a solution for overcoming a subset of the limitations of existing VPLS multicast solutions. It describes procedures for VPLS multicast that utilize multicast trees in the sevice provider (SP) network. One such multicast tree can be shared between multiple VPLS instances. Procedures by which a single multicast tree in the SP network can be used to carry traffic belonging only to a specified set of one or more IP multicast streams from one or more VPLSes are also described. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-10.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-10.txt From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Feb 3 05:22:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DFF21F84C8 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 05:22:19 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MBrKdgB25qVc for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 05:22:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF45A21F844D for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 05:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by werm10 with SMTP id m10so3303419wer.31 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:22:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=hFKuXODsot8InyMWRJAPb44AkcjpW0YxzDHetibWGgc=; b=iPQaKhdUEhxh6uFlBBujSfGBlFv4wEiFIwJw8qIUS5heAK5VpetnDJqh7H/XT3vWYs ZDhYA+EsqvpUv9E1HifwJExWxa0yLzhgMbMRd/gxzZ9+nRb3d9nNkhl+k4uJvQPpHW+W ZGMo/DZCRa1YS4kZmnVwHJ3Jpd15I8hh5sAuU= Received: by 10.216.132.195 with SMTP id o45mr2887135wei.17.1328275337787; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:22:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.55.82.42] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g6sm12322379wig.9.2012.02.03.05.22.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:22:14 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:21:57 +0000 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2Xw++PmW4BN4v4Pg= In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:22:19 -0000 This call has now concluded (well - a week or two ago!) We seem to have good consensus, and on that basis I'd like to ask that the authors go ahead and republish the draft as draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-00 (you've got a few weeks to beat the Feb 27th cut-off!) We had a couple of comments during the call that are worthy of note: 1) Ilya Varlashkin suggested a split of the control plane (BGP) and learning/forwarding sections of the draft, such that different control planes could be used for EVPN, or the EVPN control plane could be reused for other MAC routing approaches. I'll leave that one with the draft authors to consider - and perhaps discuss with Ilya. 2) Robert Raszuk indicated non-support based on PBB EPVN being more scalable than EVPN. Whilst that is true in general I suspect we probably do need to retain both drafts as some providers may not want to run PBB, or may wish to separate the PBB and EVPN functions. Certainly the level for support for this draft suggests that many others see value in progressing with it. Giles On 09/01/2012 18:39, "Giles Heron" wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Now that we've accepted the requirements and framework drafts (I think > Nabil's about to send email to the list re the framework!), it's time to > start considering whether the solutions drafts we have (this draft and the > pbb-epvn draft) are the right basis for our solutions docs. > > Please review the draft and respond by Monday January 23rd with comments as > to its suitability for WG adoption. > > Giles > > From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Feb 3 05:46:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EBBF21F8627 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 05:46:45 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-g1FoJM4pBC for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 05:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBDD21F8610 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 05:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by wibhm9 with SMTP id hm9so3364277wib.31 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:46:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=NHnQp7OpgYqOEfAMeDucWBBpjGdbbLDy+bsRtcmvopw=; b=PjsMJmb3UJSOx//XFKHM4YgctKrmFZAYd9mr1EEgxDOtlTz5zK8UVDdoCB0I4ZxzHD L7jJPMNZt0FfeCIQu+voJDn0oJbUkQwuH257mlMX0+4oSf83SgM6e6U1Eq13D8gnOc58 Mo3A4QQEx84V5z1+xanc4Q24KuO7ee07G3UxQ= Received: by 10.180.89.71 with SMTP id bm7mr24812597wib.20.1328276803448; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:46:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.55.82.42] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t15sm6665432wiv.6.2012.02.03.05.46.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:46:42 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:46:32 +0000 Subject: Re: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-iw-oam From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-iw-oam Thread-Index: AczOukmLdcHJvnh/4EiooRa7XxsDEgTv/M3M In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:46:45 -0000 I haven't seen many comments on this, positive or negative. But there are implementations, and it is on the charter, so Nabil and I consider the last call to have passed. We'll now proceed with shepherding this to RFC. Giles On 09/01/2012 10:34, "Giles Heron" wrote: > This email starts a two-week working group last call for the draft "OAM > Procedures for VPWS Interworking". > > The draft can be found at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpws-iw-oam-03 > > Please review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN WG email list. > > This WG last call will close on Monday January 23rd 2012. > > Giles > > From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Feb 3 06:00:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE2321F8559 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:00:36 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jz9wmImYPDkb for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:00:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A147921F854F for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:00:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id m10so3339910wer.31 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:00:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=Jd4xdgaXtF61zx4eU/FI+Ogxpn8bcW/6AczHblc2r+4=; b=GcjRBwtm0aerMSXJ8GaNukI87nZ5h1UD1g1Oj+fTHvXCZU+qlf2pxTGxT/C2Q0LcSk PC+DQ83GglQrew3ttgDyT5t3SxkJWgBW/I1CHsAcntp78NROSMJbL5v+jPBh7spej6TN yx4o8FZe9S1ZHUC1MiPSL6L46AQLpH5wrSYC4= Received: by 10.216.136.98 with SMTP id v76mr6463507wei.17.1328277634356; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:00:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.55.82.42] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dw7sm6760655wib.4.2012.02.03.06.00.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:00:32 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:00:16 +0000 Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2Xw++PmW4BN+GdN0= In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:00:36 -0000 This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments as to its suitability for WG adoption. Giles From sajassi@cisco.com Fri Feb 3 14:04:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DC61F0C41 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:04:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yeW7-IYN4lyJ for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:04:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458801F0C3F for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:04:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; l=595; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328306677; x=1329516277; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=toL9kKwhK6epj4K6DLPA2POBcpJqeSYgSc6lrBfphkI=; b=XSpE5gRDCDwrWjUO7lydN4tVIremeVgk4SRCGo48enRyLAB+5fRhlpDJ RrGhDEPUH9ZsUqby7P3jcfcdJZkRpTLn0dUI+RSanpMtoOeCK+sCNeSf2 M1848VJlrjsnl8aRswER4Vb0vzuxHKnVr4rb5PotnKUCD3ZXCpkk2CnTp E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAJVZLE+tJV2d/2dsb2JhbABDryiBBYFyAQEBBBIBHQpLBAIBCBEEAQELBhcBBgFFCQgBAQQBEggah2OZfAGeYotWKzMBAQQCBQMJAwGDEgUDEnmCdWMEiESfXQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,353,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="56247321" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2012 22:04:36 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q13M4ZKm021369; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 22:04:36 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.68]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:04:36 -0800 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: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:04:35 -0800 Message-ID: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2Xw++PmW4BN+GdN0AEOIfEA== References: From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Giles Heron" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2012 22:04:36.0352 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1362800:01CCE2BF] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:04:38 -0000 Support as co-author > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Giles Heron > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:00 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >=20 > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with > comments as > to its suitability for WG adoption. >=20 > Giles >=20 From dcai@cisco.com Fri Feb 3 15:04:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C4921F84D6 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:04:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hvISgnvlPtxy for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:04:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432A621F84CF for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:04:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dcai@cisco.com; l=881; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328310252; x=1329519852; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=8vpH/c5Y7HTWYYAzojmJFoouBxn8/ApJ0K/TIRT3NhI=; b=QXptCJSZv0jUhGGqWVbrHoYhSjQMG4REVbFZoX/2V9Ublf7e456fcLzS hDdUe65TgMr7rE08aNJZWVvyju47Hn1r7MMl9+VxfdbGAX1dnSvBm1xaF G1lvo6ARFGl4DFeW81sao4YWLM28TN0Jw1L1QKkx9szy4jLz/2e1jaLkS o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EALNmLE+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABDryiBBYFyAQEBBBIBHQpLBAIBCBEEAQELBhcBBgFFCQgBAQQBEggah2OaBwGeYItWKzECAQEEAgMCAwEIA4MTBQMSeYJ1YwSIRJ9d X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,354,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="28626501" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2012 23:04:11 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q13N4Bx1032740; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 23:04:11 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-237.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.123]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:04:11 -0800 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: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:04:11 -0800 Message-ID: <9F6983FDF628744193C9268DB08B97B7045E176B@xmb-sjc-237.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2Xw++PmW4BN+GdN0AEOIfEAACGgDg References: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> From: "Dennis Cai (dcai)" To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "Giles Heron" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2012 23:04:11.0428 (UTC) FILETIME=[241F7640:01CCE2C8] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:04:12 -0000 Support as co-author -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:05 PM To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Support as co-author > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Giles Heron > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:00 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >=20 > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with > comments as > to its suitability for WG adoption. >=20 > Giles >=20 From sboutros@cisco.com Fri Feb 3 15:05:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E6921F84D8 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:05:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wswCnvXE+FS for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:05:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A239B21F84D6 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:05:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sboutros@cisco.com; l=675; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328310347; x=1329519947; h=date:to:from:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version: message-id; bh=gtdtwZz73O3YGnzCwSk7YTUunS4KR7adh6NxbvN6at8=; b=SND3Yb7fTuVfZDdTNLUgwsLeMyB7uRDjE7lXdvBY4hQ2mgoSqlEgl9kh IVcomyJ7JlZ1/2U1B0J8UkvRQO5PYCQg0GUDMmbso2vveNXVUn76IxoKC cEA1dGbR6qakLcvM/h4ET64nm89Y05fFFuhTzxLxhM42X+IVjQ44Oki22 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAPVnLE+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABDiB6nCoEFgXIBAQEEEgElAksEBwQRBAEBAR4JBxktCQgGARIih2OaBwGeYItgGgcTAQgFAwMJHAMBBAGDDQUDEnmDWASIRJ9d X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,354,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="28626758" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2012 23:05:47 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q13N5lmt000677; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 23:05:47 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.114]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:05:47 -0800 Received: from sboutros-wxp01.ciswco.com ([10.21.169.33]) by xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 3 Feb 2012 15:05:46 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:05:45 -0800 To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "Giles Heron" , From: Sami Boutros Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn In-Reply-To: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer. cisco.com> References: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2012 23:05:46.0644 (UTC) FILETIME=[5CE04540:01CCE2C8] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:05:48 -0000 +1 At 02:04 PM 2/3/2012, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: >Support as co-author > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Giles Heron > > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:00 AM > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn > > > > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 > > > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > > > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with > > comments as > > to its suitability for WG adoption. > > > > Giles > > From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Sat Feb 4 00:43:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB5121F8528 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 00:43:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.924 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2kyBu0nn3BBB for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 00:43:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E6021F8527 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 00:43:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q148hbJO020788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:43:37 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.39]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:43:37 +0100 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:43:35 +0100 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2Xw++PmW4BN+GdN0AEOIfEAAWVwwg Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671D85A461@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:43:46 -0000 +1 co-author -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= li Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: vrijdag 3 februari 2012 23:05 To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Support as co-author > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Giles Heron > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:00 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >=20 > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with > comments as > to its suitability for WG adoption. >=20 > Giles >=20 From agmalis@gmail.com Sat Feb 4 05:29:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D1121F8557 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 05:29:21 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gi1jQcsNm-Pf for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 05:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A362F21F853E for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 05:29:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so7381542iag.31 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 05:29:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=fzrglS6eHRkncfLcabgV8ZF1jfEDJVPOF0cP5j9l5Z4=; b=GXiliMd+DrL/SCRiuHRzN326ZTYKCjgs007whWCdRKklFcUD/jmilZ2oJQkH0Q2yMi X58y4NYI9t5mLAWGKBsV42zAVWBVxAjrU90kAhLu7/2OQVNs4VEFY0FmeK/oUyik6Z9f /jJzJWOBybzcMNyiPM90mGbMurwCqdd0v7jaw= Received: by 10.50.95.166 with SMTP id dl6mr13014981igb.27.1328362160336; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 05:29:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.36.136 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 05:28:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 08:28:59 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn To: Giles Heron Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:29:21 -0000 Support. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Giles Heron wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments as > to its suitability for WG adoption. > > Giles > > From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Sat Feb 4 08:29:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A7E21F854A for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 08:29:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ynSlc0pH-nSy for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 08:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309BB21F853C for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 08:29:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q14GT4cS023841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:29:05 -0600 (CST) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q14GT4QA028458 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:29:04 -0600 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:29:04 -0600 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: L2VPN IETF Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:29:00 -0600 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Index: AczjWhwgTNa33VxDQ2W7TRAR4TNEjQ== Message-ID: <4145EF55-987F-4478-9C28-87C0E652CE93@alcatel-lucent.com> References: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671D85A461@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671D85A461@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> 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 135.245.2.39 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:29:08 -0000 +1 co-author On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:43 AM, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" wrote: > +1 co-author >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > Sent: vrijdag 3 februari 2012 23:05 > To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >=20 > Support as co-author >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Giles Heron >> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:00 AM >> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >>=20 >> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >>=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 >>=20 >> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >>=20 >> Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with >> comments as >> to its suitability for WG adoption. >>=20 >> Giles >>=20 >=20 From donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com Sat Feb 4 08:46:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F2421F854A for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 08:46:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hKTsd6EBzFhm for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 08:46:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CEE21F84FA for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 08:46:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q14GjxL2002512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:45:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q14Gjw4o027733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:45:58 -0600 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.147]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:45:58 -0600 From: "Fedyk, Donald (Don)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:45:57 -0600 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2Xw++PmW4BN+GdN0AOAwDoA== Message-ID: References: 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 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:46:02 -0000 Support Regards, Don=20 -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:00 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: =20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 =20 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. =20 Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments a= s to its suitability for WG adoption. Giles From paul@unbehagen.net Sat Feb 4 12:24:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D2B21F8470 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 12:24:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.436 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7cL0drf-DONf for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 12:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD4721F8319 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 12:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by obbwd15 with SMTP id wd15so6668472obb.31 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.160.2 with SMTP id xg2mr11130557obb.33.1328387077082; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.11] (c-67-161-144-217.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [67.161.144.217]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n1sm12617357obm.11.2012.02.04.12.24.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:24:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn References: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671D85A461@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <4145EF55-987F-4478-9C28-87C0E652CE93@alcatel-lucent.com> From: Paul Unbehagen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A405) In-Reply-To: <4145EF55-987F-4478-9C28-87C0E652CE93@alcatel-lucent.com> Message-Id: Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 13:24:31 -0700 To: L2VPN IETF Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:24:38 -0000 +1 On Feb 4, 2012, at 9:29 AM, "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" wrote: > +1 co-author >=20 > On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:43 AM, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" wrote: >=20 >> +1 co-author >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >> Sent: vrijdag 3 februari 2012 23:05 >> To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >>=20 >> Support as co-author >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >>> Of Giles Heron >>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:00 AM >>> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >>>=20 >>> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >>>=20 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 >>>=20 >>> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >>>=20 >>> Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with >>> comments as >>> to its suitability for WG adoption. >>>=20 >>> Giles >>>=20 >>=20 From william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Sat Feb 4 14:32:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B71921F84EC for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 14:32:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id twEQ7qsfvDXL for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 14:32:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from omr17.networksolutionsemail.com (omr17.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D93E21F846A for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 14:32:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-omr10 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr17.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q14MWm0k009672 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2012 17:32:48 -0500 Authentication-Results: cm-omr10 smtp.user=william.zayas@fibercrossing.net; auth=pass (LOGIN) X-Authenticated-UID: william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Received: from [97.158.212.229] ([97.158.212.229:54051] helo=www.palm.com) by cm-omr10 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id C8/31-04387-B02BD2F4; Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:32:48 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 18:32:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: "William Zayas" To: "Paul Unbehagen" , "L2VPN IETF" Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Palm webOS v1.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Alternative__boundary__1328394765622 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: William Zayas List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:32:55 -0000 --Alternative__boundary__1328394765622 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support. Obrigado, -- Sent from my Palm Pre On Feb 4, 2012 4:24 PM, Paul Unbehagen <paul@unbehagen.net> wrote:=20 +1 On Feb 4, 2012, at 9:29 AM, "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" <florin.bal= us@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > +1 co-author >=20 > On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:43 AM, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderick= x@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: >=20 >> +1 co-author >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Be= half Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >> Sent: vrijdag 3 februari 2012 23:05 >> To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >>=20 >> Support as co-author >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org]= On Behalf >>> Of Giles Heron >>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:00 AM >>> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >>>=20 >>> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >>>=20 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 >>>=20 >>> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >>>=20 >>> Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th wi= th >>> comments as >>> to its suitability for WG adoption. >>>=20 >>> Giles >>>=20 >>=20 --Alternative__boundary__1328394765622 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support.

Obrigado,



-- Sent from my Pa= lm Pre

On Feb 4, 2012 4:2= 4 PM, Paul Unbehagen <paul@unbehagen.net> wrote:

+1


On Feb 4, 2012, at 9:29 AM, "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" <florin= =2Ebalus@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> +1 co-author
>=20
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 12:43 AM, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.hende= rickx@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>=20
>> +1 co-author
>>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org]= On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
>> Sent: vrijdag 3 februari 2012 23:05
>> To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn
>>=20
>> Support as co-author
>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.or= g] On Behalf
>>> Of Giles Heron
>>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:00 AM
>>> To: l2vpn@ietf.org
>>> Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn
>>>=20
>>> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether:
>>>=20
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03
>>>=20
>>> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.
>>>=20
>>> Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17t= h with
>>> comments as
>>> to its suitability for WG adoption.
>>>=20
>>> Giles
>>>=20
>>=20

--Alternative__boundary__1328394765622-- From lizho.jin@gmail.com Sun Feb 5 05:40:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F19221F84FD for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 05:40:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.268 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.331, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VqWH6q1s1KTh for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 05:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA84E21F84F1 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 05:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by qcol42 with SMTP id l42so414765qco.31 for ; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:40:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/z88u76n2FrwYMQ241fypoyStsKLMyxBQZmgyWBsCAE=; b=gQTHKUimwEISJOZ0rXpsYgraL8VpbwsxjLecqdeoU5yPjom+M4P57aIyzEYI5uvs5R /9tjI9hOejM2cQ/Y854zr5iPElIku5SDf+6xbZrZL1kZUpBudaVXocuOsDXruckoilCm AHFj5HhW0St/BS9jrMWVEvZ0X/gyKB827BpPw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.116.201 with SMTP id n9mr9824653qaq.16.1328449217213; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:40:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.189.6 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 05:40:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:40:17 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn From: Lizhong Jin To: l2vpn@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074b64ab1b39104b837af75 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:40:19 -0000 --20cf3074b64ab1b39104b837af75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes, support. Lizhong > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:00:16 +0000 > From: Giles Heron > To: > Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments > as > to its suitability for WG adoption. > > Giles > > > > --20cf3074b64ab1b39104b837af75 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, support.
=A0
Lizhong
=A0
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:00:16 +0000
From: Giles Heron &= lt;giles.heron@gmail.com> To: <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject= : WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn
Message-ID: <CB5198F0.15611%giles.heron@= gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; =A0 =A0 =A0 charset=3D"US-ASCII"
This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether:

h= ttp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03

should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.

Please review the draft= and respond by Friday February 17th with comments as
to its suitability= for WG adoption.

Giles




--20cf3074b64ab1b39104b837af75-- From shtsuchi@cisco.com Sun Feb 5 17:57:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF83421F847E for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:57:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u48e2OcYDSQQ for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:57:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A0621F8475 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:57:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shtsuchi@cisco.com; l=365; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328493466; x=1329703066; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2RDjP+ztyrD/lJ382d3SL3cAIWHO0m2aF4zkh9ieGA4=; b=bJOE8U35rQsvxX7wQV+hLHvjLQgNqSi5P02vvDeXciwHMkB1o1qvtoz6 YxfReL6HKg1jBtdB+a3lUw9ml8ukCXBTIYa1CI0dk+xPjZlCYuBlU3ZNh f1OcR8x5YRcwgosvEhlitwHrliGlH4o4TGu6VNHPVF1CsHutpq9yrveZa c=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,367,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="28667416" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2012 01:57:45 +0000 Received: from [64.104.53.151] (dhcp-tmt-wirelessdata-64-104-53-151.cisco.com [64.104.53.151]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q161vhZf029560; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 01:57:44 GMT Message-ID: <4F2F3395.5020007@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:57:41 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: giles.heron@gmail.com Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:57:46 -0000 Support! (2012/02/03 23:00), Giles Heron wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments as > to its suitability for WG adoption. > > Giles > > From andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com Sun Feb 5 19:21:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5296A21F858E for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:21:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EUChJePs9eha for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:21:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4ED221F855F for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:21:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q163LfT4004501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:21:41 -0600 (CST) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.112]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q163LevP006146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:21:40 -0600 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.146]) by USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.112]) with mapi; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:21:39 -0600 From: "Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)" To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 21:21:40 -0600 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Index: AczkfnB+lBDyywWdSke8NAK7L9HK7g== Message-ID: <02557D4F-4B2A-446F-AFB0-8F007D5AB7E4@alcatel-lucent.com> References: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D5608D4B976@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <9F6983FDF628744193C9268DB08B97B7045E176B@xmb-sjc-237.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9F6983FDF628744193C9268DB08B97B7045E176B@xmb-sjc-237.amer.cisco.com> 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 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:21:43 -0000 Support Andrew On 2012-02-03, at 6:04 PM, "Dennis Cai (dcai)" wrote: > Support as co-author >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:05 PM > To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >=20 > Support as co-author >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Giles Heron >> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:00 AM >> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn >>=20 >> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >>=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 >>=20 >> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >>=20 >> Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with >> comments as >> to its suitability for WG adoption. >>=20 >> Giles >>=20 >=20 From bedard.phil@gmail.com Mon Feb 6 07:03:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E1121F8620 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:03:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.98 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dEeOyH8iI3xh for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:03:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB67D21F863C for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:03:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by obbwd15 with SMTP id wd15so8414705obb.31 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:03:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hCZyGQOZ4xXNmwtOkVBWrMGfh8PNofLMc8FgjVlRzAU=; b=NqErdO92swuOoibj4G425zwZG0MWZ4E3hEOMsy8WDW7nS12sePAIEwJc/SE3+Nv8hs o4izYkV7etmGzdLPoePmdcE5kmrP+PqIOftfRnyTRyZiJqLUl2YyrrizL1y56mdOn9JC 1+soOZv+WHawKH6ym6HyDfkzi1qM0ZvLhQrDs= Received: by 10.182.53.102 with SMTP id a6mr17032014obp.30.1328540610341; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:03:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.63.99.102] (gw1.cox.com. [24.248.74.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i5sm4834547obc.9.2012.02.06.07.03.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:03:29 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:03:22 -0500 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn From: Phil Bedard To: Giles Heron , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:03:32 -0000 Support -Phil On 2/3/12 9:00 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 > >should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > >Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments >as >to its suitability for WG adoption. > >Giles > > From ssalam@cisco.com Mon Feb 6 09:15:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC9721F86CE for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:15:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1SeXUGGs552 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:15:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BDA21F86EA for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:15:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ssalam@cisco.com; l=412; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328548503; x=1329758103; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=CFWy364Ux5gWwNZMnXz3dGSgFen2pRe0Iv150Hr5uaI=; b=eGFFP82xo/OokpQcanG6G1aquedbvLX1ypzoOViWU5Cx324lUZG0ZXZG dC3H1nD/qxqFjurAQMoC6F0IAuMJ8wvGY2MybWvMu2SmrWbA+KJcIzTtu 8RJ4tNNVxBfKHyVRaayKDHXWyUeGLKONcw18EWIcisogzPff8qxYN2WNv 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtoGADkKME+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABDr0ICgQWBcgEBAQMBEgEnAgFBDQEIZzYBAQQBEiKHWgmaEgGebogVgxkBKRMBCAUDAwkHAQcHAgQBAgGEJYNYBIhEjGSLCoMwhEI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,372,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="27270846" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Feb 2012 17:15:02 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q16HF2RU007233; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:15:02 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-233.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.88]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:15:00 -0800 Received: from 161.44.207.8 ([161.44.207.8]) by xmb-sjc-233.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.88]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:15:00 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.27.0.100910 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:14:53 -0800 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn From: Samer Salam To: Giles Heron , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2Xw++PmW4BN+GdN0AnavScw== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2012 17:15:01.0162 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC07D0A0:01CCE4F2] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:15:04 -0000 Support as coauthor. On 12-02-03 6:00 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments as > to its suitability for WG adoption. > > Giles > > From jiangyuanlong@huawei.com Mon Feb 6 17:59:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8048C21F86CF for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:59:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qgh50TUPYrmo for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0DD21F86C9 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:59:47 -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 <0LZ000HCF2V6L7@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:59:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.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 <0LZ0005472V3KO@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:59:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGW61137; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:59:30 +0800 Received: from SZXEML418-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.157) by szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:58:59 +0800 Received: from SZXEML508-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.52]) by szxeml418-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.157]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:59:14 +0800 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:59:13 +0000 From: Jiangyuanlong Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.70.40.82] To: Giles Heron Message-id: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68B175253D8@SZXEML508-MBS.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-index: AQHM5TwXGb8TodqR00eovwtrXDvo9w== X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:59:48 -0000 Support Regards Yuanlong ------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:00:16 +0000 From: Giles Heron To: Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments as to its suitability for WG adoption. Giles From ogaki@kddilabs.jp Mon Feb 6 19:02:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AA721F85E0 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:02:03 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nvR+SDO2vU-Z for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp (mandala.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:12::16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C480021F85DD for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:02:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344B017480F6 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:02:02 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kddilabs.jp Received: from mandala.kddilabs.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mandala.kddilabs.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eO5Fy9EiBSFA for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:02:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp [IPv6:2001:200:601:1300:172:19:83:254]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C070E17480D2 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:02:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from dhcp249.east-2f.cn.kddilabs.jp (platinum [IPv6:::1]) by platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00FBA578063 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:02:00 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4F309429.9020802@kddilabs.jp> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:02:01 +0900 From: "Ogaki, Kenichi" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:02:03 -0000 Yes/Support Just editorial comments: 6.1 Type 1 RD RD? 10.6 2nd and 3rd "MES2" should be "MES3"? Kenichi On 2/3/12 11:00 PM, Giles Heron wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments as > to its suitability for WG adoption. > > Giles > > > From skraza@cisco.com Mon Feb 6 20:39:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF9611E80E0; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:39:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f8-Mn4q1dZZZ; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:39:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499FF11E8086; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:39:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=skraza@cisco.com; l=2503; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328589541; x=1329799141; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aos4+hkz+5uDo24+5umEo1RzsU67AdTyEdGc1OqhjWw=; b=gC3m8ERz75HPJG0mqk2JrlEFrLTpcZ59aeGzOLPYvKX4aAdCFTO1yUvJ gxznaaXNAy0RT7Ay7QVLCGGJaAEVArGO4dMAZfsmcnVegMzyA5QQpxW6+ vMkjsO71AHOOx9iEP2WLNIITXOeNCj8/0RlWjqrsWarwHbyP7pA+WmmZL g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAEKqME+tJXG8/2dsb2JhbAA/A65kZ4EFgXIBAQEDAQEBAQ8BKQEYEQgLEgF1MAEBBA4FCRmHWgmZUwGXI4stKxMBCAUDAwkHAQcHAoQtJgEQBYMcBIgRM4xkknk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,374,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="56863064" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2012 04:39:01 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q174d0Zn016185; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 04:39:00 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:39:00 -0600 Received: from 10.86.255.42 ([10.86.255.42]) by XMB-RCD-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 04:39:00 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:39:27 -0500 Subject: Summary of changes [Re: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.txt] From: Kamran Raza To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Summary of changes [Re: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.txt] Thread-Index: AczlUnkt+lXc9ScklEePEb0O9TxKBw== In-Reply-To: <20120207042726.28578.34160.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2012 04:39:00.0752 (UTC) FILETIME=[69884900:01CCE552] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:01:08 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, "Carlos Pignataro \(cpignata\)" , "Malis, Andrew G \(Andy\)" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:39:02 -0000 The changes from rev -02 to -03 mainly incorporates comments received durin= g WG LC: 1- Clarifies that PW Typed WC FEC can be used in any LDP message that allow= s FEC element - i.e. Label messages, Address Withdraw [ for VPLS], and Notification. 2 - New Section 4.4: Applicability of PW Typed WC FEC in VPLS MAC Withdrawal to allow a PE node to =B3wildcard=B2 withdraw **all** MAC addresses for: =20 o all VPLS instances; or o all VPLS instances corresponding to a given PW type. =20 [ Ack Daniel Cohn for his input ] 3- Mandates that VPLS MAC Wdw (Address Withdrawal) MUST contain an =B3empty=B2 list if PW Typed WC specified in FEC TLV. Rgds, -- Kamran On 12-02-06 11:27 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge t= o > Edge Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized PWid FE= C > Elements > Author(s) : Kamran Raza > Sami Boutros > Carlos Pignataro > Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2012-02-06 >=20 > The "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element" > defines an extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) that > can be used when it is desired to request or withdraw or release all > label bindings for a given FEC Element type. However, a typed > wildcard FEC element must be individually defined for each FEC > element type. This specification defines the typed wildcard FEC > elements for the PWid (0x80) and Generalized PWid (0x81) FEC element > types. >=20 >=20 >=20 > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.tx= t >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.txt >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 --=20 Syed Kamran Raza Technical Leader, SPRSG IOS-XR Routing (MPLS) Cisco Systems, Inc., Kanata, ON, K2K 3E8, Canada Ph: +1 (613) 254-4520 http://www.cisco.com From amalis@gmail.com Mon Feb 6 22:04:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C0021F8739; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:04:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bDSCTOiso1j9; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:04:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E28421F8726; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:04:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by iagf6 with SMTP id f6so11509895iag.31 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:04:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uKd0Uml+mkYvQDqUOMX/mbCM8+u6L1CaUh86zPeNFuQ=; b=lOwGZn5AZbYxtuwnUuETZrStVZcDEhWukmaO+Xg5OZ129Z044WzMm+Gm+hVLot3my4 BiL5jVNK4nX5jcs/aGtt9wsqlANwdOihHZdxreb3OM5s/VQoiLk+3VpCRwFZYNrONhps D8FyJCCEEv0Y7uYKv+zSM4d1R6PBlip5FlYHg= Received: by 10.50.89.197 with SMTP id bq5mr24723072igb.24.1328594683268; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:04:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: amalis@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.100.198 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:04:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20120207042726.28578.34160.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:04:23 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: T_ntBDip6tY0PXWiJIyTGdwLLeM Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PWE3] Summary of changes [Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.txt] To: Kamran Raza Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:01:08 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, "Carlos Pignataro \(cpignata\)" , pwe3@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:04:44 -0000 Kamran, Thanks to you and the other authors. I'll leave this open for a couple of more days to give WG participants a chance to review the changes, and assuming there aren't any further comments, I'll forward it to the IESG. I would like to remind the WG that you can easily generate a diff by going to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03 and clicking on "Diff1" and "Diff2" to get two types of diffs. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Kamran Raza wrote: > > The changes from rev -02 to -03 mainly incorporates comments received dur= ing > WG LC: > > 1- Clarifies that PW Typed WC FEC can be used in any LDP message that all= ows > FEC element - i.e. Label messages, Address Withdraw [ for VPLS], and > Notification. > > =A02 - New Section 4.4: Applicability of PW Typed WC FEC in VPLS MAC > Withdrawal to allow a PE node to =B3wildcard=B2 withdraw **all** MAC addr= esses > for: > =A0 =A0 o =A0all VPLS instances; or > =A0 =A0 o =A0all VPLS instances corresponding to a given PW type. > > =A0[ Ack Daniel Cohn for his input ] > > 3- Mandates that VPLS MAC Wdw (Address Withdrawal) MUST contain an =B3emp= ty=B2 > list if PW Typed WC specified in FEC TLV. > > Rgds, > -- Kamran > > On 12-02-06 11:27 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" > wrote: > >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge = to >> Edge Working Group of the IETF. >> >> Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generali= zed PWid FEC >> Elements >> Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Kamran Raza >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Sami Boutros >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Carlos Pignataro >> Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.txt >> Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 9 >> Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2012-02-06 >> >> =A0 =A0The "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element" >> =A0 =A0defines an extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) tha= t >> =A0 =A0can be used when it is desired to request or withdraw or release = all >> =A0 =A0label bindings for a given FEC Element type. =A0However, a typed >> =A0 =A0wildcard FEC element must be individually defined for each FEC >> =A0 =A0element type. =A0This specification defines the typed wildcard FE= C >> =A0 =A0elements for the PWid (0x80) and Generalized PWid (0x81) FEC elem= ent >> =A0 =A0types. >> >> >> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.t= xt >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.tx= t >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pwe3 mailing list >> pwe3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > -- > Syed Kamran Raza > Technical Leader, SPRSG IOS-XR Routing (MPLS) > Cisco Systems, Inc., > Kanata, ON, K2K 3E8, Canada > Ph: +1 (613) 254-4520 > http://www.cisco.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Tue Feb 7 00:45:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C67621F85B9 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:45:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.446, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K6uGxY0iKr+m for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C9C21F8711 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 56690577109098; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:19:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 48311.6912904769; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:45:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q178jga8041054; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:45:42 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) To: pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com, florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com, geraldine.calvignac@orange-ftgroup.com, ostokes@extremenetworks.com Subject: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:45:02 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-07 16:45:43, Serialize complete at 2012-02-07 16:45:43 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 003020E84825799D_=" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn q178jga8041054 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:45:54 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 003020E84825799D_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi authors, Since v04 of this draft, the PE-ID TLV has been removed and replaced by MAC Flush Parameters TLV. In section 4.1.1, it says "The source (mine/me) is defined either as the PW associated with the LDP session on which the LDP MAC Withdraw was received or with the BMAC(s) listed in the BMAC Sub-TLV". That means the MAC flushing associated PW endpoint address is fixed with the sending PE. In some cases, it may be useful for a PE to send MAC withdraw with other source endpoint address of other PW. E.g, in a dual-homed scenario in figure 5 of RFC4762, if the PE1-rs with primary PW is down, the PE3-rs with secondary PW could send MAC withdraw with PE1-rs address, to tell other PE-rs to flush all MAC address from PE1-rs. Hope to see your comments. Thanks Lizhong -------------------------------------------------------- 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 003020E84825799D_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi authors,
Since v04 of this draft, the PE-ID TLV has been removed and replaced by MAC Flush Parameters TLV. In section 4.1.1, it says "The source (mine/me) is defined either as the PW associated with the LDP session on which the LDP MAC Withdraw was received or with the BMAC(s) listed in the BMAC Sub-TLV". That means the MAC flushing associated PW endpoint address is fixed with the sending PE.
In some cases, it may be useful for a PE to send MAC withdraw with other source endpoint address of other PW. E.g, in a dual-homed scenario in figure 5 of RFC4762, if the PE1-rs with primary PW is down, the PE3-rs with secondary PW could send MAC withdraw with PE1-rs address, to tell other PE-rs to flush all MAC address from PE1-rs.

Hope to see your comments.

Thanks
Lizhong


 
--------------------------------------------------------
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 003020E84825799D_=-- From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Feb 7 07:52:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3292521F8827 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:52:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ol6a7a3bweW7 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF9A21F8824 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:52:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q17Fq47n026895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:52:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.110]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q17FpvAq007326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:51:57 -0600 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.110]) with mapi; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:51:57 -0600 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: Lizhong Jin , "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" , "geraldine.calvignac@orange-ftgroup.com" , "ostokes@extremenetworks.com" Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:51:55 -0600 Subject: RE: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 Thread-Topic: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 Thread-Index: AczldOx9JPqL9QJMREeaZ/P90vGB1wAOqTXg Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED61D96@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED61D96USNAVSXCHMBSC_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:52:12 -0000 --_000_2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED61D96USNAVSXCHMBSC_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lizhong, See in-line... From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:45 AM To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); geraldine.c= alvignac@orange-ftgroup.com; ostokes@extremenetworks.com Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 Hi authors, Since v04 of this draft, the PE-ID TLV has been removed and replaced by MAC= Flush Parameters TLV. In section 4.1.1, it says "The source (mine/me) is d= efined either as the PW associated with the LDP session on which the LDP MA= C Withdraw was received or with the BMAC(s) listed in the BMAC Sub-TLV". That means the MAC flushing associated PW endpoint address is fixed with th= e sending PE. In some cases, it may be useful for a PE to send MAC withdraw with other so= urce endpoint address of other PW. E.g, in a dual-homed scenario in figure = 5 of RFC4762, if the PE1-rs with primary PW is down, the PE3-rs with second= ary PW could send MAC withdraw with PE1-rs address, to tell other PE-rs to = flush all MAC address from PE1-rs. FB> If PE1-rs is down the other PEs in the mesh will know about it in a num= ber of ways: their tunnel/PW to PE1-rs will be down/nexthop tracking (IGP) = will indicate PE1-rs is gone etc... As a result everybody will flush their = MAC addresses from PE1 anyhow. If another PE sends the MAC Flush it will in= crease the flooding time by doing an unnecessary second flush. Hope to see your comments. Thanks Lizhong -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is = solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is co= nfidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and ar= e 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 th= e 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. --_000_2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED61D96USNAVSXCHMBSC_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Lizhong,

See in-line…

 

From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:45 AM
To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); geraldine.calvignac@orange-ftgroup.com; ostokes@extremenetworks.com
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05=

 


Hi author= s,
Since v04= of this draft, the PE-ID TLV has been removed and replaced by MAC Flush Parame= ters TLV. In section 4.1.1, it says "The source (mine/me) is defined either= as the PW associated with the LDP session on which the LDP MAC Withdraw was received or with the BMAC(s) listed in the BMAC Sub-TLV".

That means the MAC flushing associated PW endpoint address is fixed with the sen= ding PE.
In some c= ases, it may be useful for a PE to send MAC withdraw with other source endpoint address of other PW. E.g, in a dual-homed scenario in figure 5 of RFC4762, = if the PE1-rs with primary PW is down, the PE3-rs with secondary PW could send= MAC withdraw with PE1-rs address, to tell other PE-rs to flush all MAC address = from PE1-rs.

 

FB> If PE1-rs is down the other PEs in the mesh will know about it in a number of ways: their tunnel/PW to PE1-rs will be down/nextho= p tracking (IGP) will indicate PE1-rs is gone etc… As a result everybod= y will flush their MAC addresses from PE1 anyhow. If another PE sends the MAC Flush it w= ill increase the flooding time by doing an unnecessary second flush.=



Hope to s= ee your comments.

Thanks
Lizhong


 

 
------------------------------------------=
--------------
ZTE Information Security =
;Notice: The information contained in this ma=
il is solely property of the sender's or=
ganization. This mail communication is confidentia=
l. Recipients named above are obligated to&nb=
sp;maintain secrecy and are not permitted to&=
nbsp;disclose the contents of this communication&n=
bsp;to others.
This email and any&=
nbsp;files transmitted with it are confidential&nb=
sp;and intended solely for the use of th=
e individual or entity to whom they are&=
nbsp;addressed. If you have received this ema=
il 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 sca=
nned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Sp=
am system.
--_000_2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED61D96USNAVSXCHMBSC_-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Feb 7 15:10:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB2E21F85C7; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:10:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W2Vsrh18LNk3; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:10:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC21521F85E1; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:10:26 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Subject: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120207231026.15218.18486.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:10:26 -0800 Cc: l2vpn mailing list , l2vpn chair , RFC Editor X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:10:28 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation/ Technical Summary A Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) provides a point-to-point connection service between a pair of Customer Edge (CE) devices over an IP/MPLS packet switched network using Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) technology. It does so by binding two Attachment Circuits (ACs), each connecting a CE device with a Provider Edge (PE) device, to a Pseudowire (PW) extended between the two PEs. PWE3 defines PW types that interconnect ACs of the same technology (homogeneous ACs), e.g., both ACs being Ethernet. In general, a VPWS provides connectivity between homogeneous ACs using the existing PWE3 technology. However, if the ACs are layer2 attachment circuits of heterogeneous types (e.g., one AC is Ethernet and the other one is a Fame Relay DLCI), and solely carry IP datagrams in the corresponding packet data units' payload, it is possible to provide a VPWS that interconnects these ACs using IP Layer2 Transport PWs often referred to simply as IP PWs. This requires the PEs to perform a function known as "ARP Mediation". ARP Mediation refers to the process of resolving IP addresses to Layer 2 addresses when different address resolution protocols are used on either Attachment Circuit. The methods described in this document are applicable even when the CEs run a routing protocol between them as long as the routing protocol runs over IP. Working Group Summary This document has been in existence since the very beginning of the PPVPN and L2VPN WG's. At first, it only included support for IPv4, but subsequently was updated to include support for IPv6. Ultimately, this document provides a means of interworking IPv4-enabled ACs, IPv6-enabled ACs and dual-stack IPv4/IPv6-enabled ACs whereby the ACs are of disparate Layer2 technologies. Document Quality There are no concerns about document quality. Several implementations of this draft have existed in the field for several years. Personnel Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com) is the Document Shepherd. Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) is the Responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note In section 2 OLD A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets SHOULD perform the following logical steps: NEW A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets MUST perform the following logical steps: END ===== In section 4.3.3 - two places - end of list item 2 - end of first sentence list item 3 In section 4.3.4 second para OLD link-layer address of the local AC NEW link layer address of the PE interface attached to local AC END From Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Tue Feb 7 21:21:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B9911E8094 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:21:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.721, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DIODv5e-NLq1 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:21:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail21.messagelabs.com (mail21.messagelabs.com [85.158.143.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 590C811E8088 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:21:46 -0800 (PST) X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-21.messagelabs.com!1328678504!8266130!1 X-Originating-IP: [147.234.242.234] X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,- Received: (qmail 21573 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2012 05:21:44 -0000 Received: from ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com (HELO ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com) (147.234.242.234) by server-10.tower-21.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2012 05:21:44 -0000 X-AuditID: 93eaf2e7-b7f2a6d000000e7d-4e-4f321262984c Received: from ilptexch01.ecitele.com ( [172.31.244.40]) by ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 88.21.03709.262123F4; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:12:50 +0200 (IST) Received: from ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com ([147.234.244.212]) by ilptexch01.ecitele.com ([172.31.244.40]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:21:43 +0200 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: "hshah@ciena.com" Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:20:15 +0200 Subject: FW: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) Thread-Topic: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) Thread-Index: AQHM5iGLH5LZfRF4eEaHY0K+xkJ4DQ== Message-ID: 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-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA1VSfWwLcRjO766rM73l1q36W7PEORuCTrtZ1LaKiAR/SBmRkMjc7n7ao702 d6dRESosm0ViH/9QERv1EVuwIb5GrEJYyAgJ85WILWw+wjDmY3O3m5n/nvd9nud939/dQ+Dm VqONEEQFSSLrZ4zJhtqe3i/2UnOux9Gxa6LrUlMDcL3qS4yZhy262zFgWBSP92NLsdVRUMSK YlBhFUTzSObczFJJCLNchKEF3s04GTrkZzkUQKLiZthQCIk8Mze5SG0KIo1ELsgLotfNLF7u sbtc+XPsTmbu5EnOvMLkFT5BppE9wAp+OoBkmfUiWu1oF4o84ul1QYlWfIiW1tbivjPd1tDj CZs+fPoJoqAzoxKMJSA1C+7uG8R0PB7ee3HKWAmSCTN1BcD++++AXtQCWP/22JDKSLlhc8Nz o4bTqSlwx/ebQMM4lQ13Nl8dwgYqC0Z/HRoyp1F7AHx6/TiuFelUFYBnu14Pu3NgefSloRIQ BEktgy3bl2htoJ7xra0R04da4ZPOg8PnUTDe0o7r2AK7Xw0k6XoLfFZ+aviIGbDucq9Rx9Ph 0fq3Q3qSSoW393UadG8GbD3+2FAFLLFRK2Kj7LFR9tgoex0wnAAWwR9SSgNehzMHcYKC/CiH CwaagR6G1xfAj4NZCUARgDGRbz46PeYkNixHAgmQQWCMhcSTcj3mlNIgH/Gxsq9E2uhHcgJA AmfSySPFqpzk2chmJAX/Ui71c1bjtnFcUPupSkmew/FfwVjJLu7dEjPlVdO1AaEQkv5aMwmC geQNbWOqhLxo0zrBr/yjMWKsttmkbn6kaUg5xAZkwavzbWCizUqe1AhKI3wbxRGvlvxtg4OD PcCqvjONbNJUJjV1I+4edTCmDuYx7UmymvwRyhYF3s1NNe2nM8LnzfGiPdkOa8lW6lqit+qh Ka9mfmD2g2jb6gPh8MJbKdVyb8v7OWVVxa7up6aOY7ay32sjz/mvZWm5ifzCimeT9hbsv5W6 oOTjD2rxo4G+lsaegjXwoj1z6szWlVO4WRvWf/51jqu4M/8oiKV0JpT2w1s+ebpWuTMTjEH2 sc5puCSzfwChqOEE1AMAAA== Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:21:50 -0000 Himanshu hi, Congratulations! I believe (may be wrong here) that this sets an absolute record of all times= : - To the best of my recollection, the -00 version of draft-shah has been pos= ted some time in 2001 - It has garnered immediate support in the community with multiple implement= ations - And, in spite of all that, it took 12 (twelve!) years to get the -19 versi= on of the WG draft to be approved for publication. They say that late is better than never - how true! Again, congratulations! Hopefully your next one will take somewhat less time= ... Sasha ________________________________________ From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG= [iesg-secretary@ietf.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:10 AM To: IETF-Announce Cc: l2vpn mailing list; l2vpn chair; RFC Editor Subject: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN'= to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation/ Technical Summary A Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) provides a point-to-point connection service between a pair of Customer Edge (CE) devices over an IP/MPLS packet switched network using Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) technology. It does so by binding two Attachment Circuits (ACs), each connecting a CE device with a Provider Edge (PE) device, to a Pseudowire (PW) extended between the two PEs. PWE3 defines PW types that interconnect ACs of the same technology (homogeneous ACs), e.g., both ACs being Ethernet. In general, a VPWS provides connectivity between homogeneous ACs using the existing PWE3 technology. However, if the ACs are layer2 attachment circuits of heterogeneous types (e.g., one AC is Ethernet and the other one is a Fame Relay DLCI), and solely carry IP datagrams in the corresponding packet data units' payload, it is possible to provide a VPWS that interconnects these ACs using IP Layer2 Transport PWs often referred to simply as IP PWs. This requires the PEs to perform a function known as "ARP Mediation". ARP Mediation refers to the process of resolving IP addresses to Layer 2 addresses when different address resolution protocols are used on either Attachment Circuit. The methods described in this document are applicable even when the CEs run a routing protocol between them as long as the routing protocol runs over IP. Working Group Summary This document has been in existence since the very beginning of the PPVPN and L2VPN WG's. At first, it only included support for IPv4, but subsequently was updated to include support for IPv6. Ultimately, this document provides a means of interworking IPv4-enabled ACs, IPv6-enabled ACs and dual-stack IPv4/IPv6-enabled ACs whereby the ACs are of disparate Layer2 technologies. Document Quality There are no concerns about document quality. Several implementations of this draft have existed in the field for several years. Personnel Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com) is the Document Shepherd. Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) is the Responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note In section 2 OLD A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets SHOULD perform the following logical steps: NEW A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets MUST perform the following logical steps: END =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D In section 4.3.3 - two places - end of list item 2 - end of first sentence list item 3 In section 4.3.4 second para OLD link-layer address of the local AC NEW link layer address of the PE interface attached to local AC END This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informat= ion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If yo= u have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phon= e or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Tue Feb 7 23:52:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB77521F8741 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:52:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.432, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dnxzQms5E5+e for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:52:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE8921F872A for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:52:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 56690577109098; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:25:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 5467.6912904769; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:52:11 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q187q6uY040403; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:52:06 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED61D96@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" Subject: RE: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:51:24 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-08 15:52:08, Serialize complete at 2012-02-08 15:52:08 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 002B39924825799E_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q187q6uY040403 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "ostokes@extremenetworks.com" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:52:17 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 002B39924825799E_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RmxvcmluLA0KVGhhbmtzIGZvciB0aGUgcmVwbHksIHNlZSBpbmxpbmUgYmVsb3cuDQoNClJlZ2Fy ZHMNCkxpemhvbmcNCiANCg0KIkJhbHVzLCBGbG9yaW4gU3RlbGlhbiAoRmxvcmluKSIgPGZsb3Jp bi5iYWx1c0BhbGNhdGVsLWx1Y2VudC5jb20+IHdyb3RlIA0KMjAxMi8wMi8wNyAyMzo1MTo1NToN Cg0KPiBMaXpob25nLA0KPiBTZWUgaW4tbGluZaGtDQo+IA0KPiBGcm9tOiBMaXpob25nIEppbiBb bWFpbHRvOmxpemhvbmcuamluQHp0ZS5jb20uY25dIA0KPiBTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBGZWJydWFy eSAwNywgMjAxMiAxMjo0NSBBTQ0KPiBUbzogRHV0dGEsIFByYW5qYWwgSyAoUHJhbmphbCk7IEJh bHVzLCBGbG9yaW4gU3RlbGlhbiAoRmxvcmluKTsgDQo+IGdlcmFsZGluZS5jYWx2aWduYWNAb3Jh bmdlLWZ0Z3JvdXAuY29tOyBvc3Rva2VzQGV4dHJlbWVuZXR3b3Jrcy5jb20NCj4gQ2M6IGwydnBu QGlldGYub3JnDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IENvbW1lbnRzIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1s ZHAtbWFjLW9wdC0wNQ0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEhpIGF1dGhvcnMsIA0KPiBTaW5jZSB2MDQgb2YgdGhp cyBkcmFmdCwgdGhlIFBFLUlEIFRMViBoYXMgYmVlbiByZW1vdmVkIGFuZCByZXBsYWNlZA0KPiBi eSBNQUMgRmx1c2ggUGFyYW1ldGVycyBUTFYuIEluIHNlY3Rpb24gNC4xLjEsIGl0IHNheXMgIlRo ZSBzb3VyY2UgDQo+IChtaW5lL21lKSBpcyBkZWZpbmVkIGVpdGhlciBhcyB0aGUgUFcgYXNzb2Np YXRlZCB3aXRoIHRoZSBMRFAgDQo+IHNlc3Npb24gb24gd2hpY2ggdGhlIExEUCBNQUMgV2l0aGRy YXcgd2FzIHJlY2VpdmVkIG9yIHdpdGggdGhlIA0KPiBCTUFDKHMpIGxpc3RlZCBpbiB0aGUgQk1B QyBTdWItVExWIi4gDQo+IFRoYXQgbWVhbnMgdGhlIE1BQyBmbHVzaGluZyBhc3NvY2lhdGVkIFBX IGVuZHBvaW50IGFkZHJlc3MgaXMgZml4ZWQgDQo+IHdpdGggdGhlIHNlbmRpbmcgUEUuIA0KPiBJ biBzb21lIGNhc2VzLCBpdCBtYXkgYmUgdXNlZnVsIGZvciBhIFBFIHRvIHNlbmQgTUFDIHdpdGhk cmF3IHdpdGggDQo+IG90aGVyIHNvdXJjZSBlbmRwb2ludCBhZGRyZXNzIG9mIG90aGVyIFBXLiBF LmcsIGluIGEgZHVhbC1ob21lZCANCj4gc2NlbmFyaW8gaW4gZmlndXJlIDUgb2YgUkZDNDc2Miwg aWYgdGhlIFBFMS1ycyB3aXRoIHByaW1hcnkgUFcgaXMgDQo+IGRvd24sIHRoZSBQRTMtcnMgd2l0 aCBzZWNvbmRhcnkgUFcgY291bGQgc2VuZCBNQUMgd2l0aGRyYXcgd2l0aCBQRTEtDQo+IHJzIGFk ZHJlc3MsIHRvIHRlbGwgb3RoZXIgUEUtcnMgdG8gZmx1c2ggYWxsIE1BQyBhZGRyZXNzIGZyb20g UEUxLXJzLiANCj4gDQo+IEZCPiBJZiBQRTEtcnMgaXMgZG93biB0aGUgb3RoZXIgUEVzIGluIHRo ZSBtZXNoIHdpbGwga25vdyBhYm91dCBpdCANCj4gaW4gYSBudW1iZXIgb2Ygd2F5czogdGhlaXIg dHVubmVsL1BXIHRvIFBFMS1ycyB3aWxsIGJlIGRvd24vbmV4dGhvcCANCj4gdHJhY2tpbmcgKElH UCkgd2lsbCBpbmRpY2F0ZSBQRTEtcnMgaXMgZ29uZSBldGOhrSBBcyBhIHJlc3VsdCANCj4gZXZl cnlib2R5IHdpbGwgZmx1c2ggdGhlaXIgTUFDIGFkZHJlc3NlcyBmcm9tIFBFMSBhbnlob3cuIElm IGFub3RoZXINCj4gUEUgc2VuZHMgdGhlIE1BQyBGbHVzaCBpdCB3aWxsIGluY3JlYXNlIHRoZSBm bG9vZGluZyB0aW1lIGJ5IGRvaW5nIA0KPiBhbiB1bm5lY2Vzc2FyeSBzZWNvbmQgZmx1c2guDQpb TGl6aG9uZ10gVGhlIHByZWNvbmRpdGlvbiBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIGlzIE9BTSBydW5uaW5nIGJl dHdlZW4gUEUxLXJzIGFuZCANCm90aGVyIFBFcy4gSWYgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gT0FNLCBpdCBoYXMg dG8gcmVseSBvbiBMRFAgc2Vzc2lvbiB0aW1lb3V0IG9yIA0KSUdQIGNvbnZlcmdlbmNlIHdoaWNo IG1heWJlIGEgYml0IHNsb3cuIEluIG1hbnkgY2FzZXMsIFBFMy1ycyB3aWxsIGtub3cgDQp0aGUg ZmFpbHVyZSBvZiBwcmltYXJ5IFBXIGZhc3RlciB0aGFuIG90aGVyIFBFLXJzLiBXaGF0J3MgbW9y ZSwgaW4gDQpSRkM0NzYyLCBQRTMtcnMgd2lsbCBhbHdheXMgc2VuZCBNQUMgd2l0aGRyYXcgd2l0 aCBlbXB0eSBNQUMgbGlzdCB3aGF0ZXZlciANClBFMS1ycyBpcyBkb3duIG9yIG5vdCAoUEUzLXJz IHdpbGwgc2VuZCB3aXRoZHJhdyB3aGVuIHNlY29uZCBQVyBmcm9tIA0Kc3RhbmRieSB0byBhY3Rp dmUpLCB3aGljaCB3b3JzZSB0aGUgc2l0dWF0aW9uLg0KT25lIG1vcmUgdXNlZnVsIHNjZW5hcmlv IGlzIENFIG11bHRpaG9taW5nIHdpdGggSUNDUCBkZXBsb3llZCwgdGhlIHN0YW5kYnkgDQpQRSB3 b3VsZCBrbm93IHRoZSBwcmltYXJ5IFBFIGZhaWx1cmUgZmFzdGVyIHRoYW4gb3RoZXIgUEUsIGFu ZCBpdCB3b3VsZCBiZSANCmJldHRlciBmb3Igb3JpZ2luYWwgc3RhbmRieSBQRSB0byBzZW5kIE1B QyB3aXRoZHJhdyB3aXRoIGZhaWxlZCBQRSANCmFkZHJlc3MsIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgTUFDIHdpdGhk cmF3IHdpdGggZW1wdHkgbGlzdC4NCg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IEhvcGUgdG8gc2VlIHlvdXIgY29tbWVu dHMuIA0KPiANCj4gVGhhbmtzIA0KPiBMaXpob25nIA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCg0KDQotLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KWlRF IEluZm9ybWF0aW9uIFNlY3VyaXR5IE5vdGljZTogVGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGNvbnRhaW5lZCBp biB0aGlzIG1haWwgaXMgc29sZWx5IHByb3BlcnR5IG9mIHRoZSBzZW5kZXIncyBvcmdhbml6YXRp b24uIFRoaXMgbWFpbCBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIGlzIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbC4gUmVjaXBpZW50cyBu YW1lZCBhYm92ZSBhcmUgb2JsaWdhdGVkIHRvIG1haW50YWluIHNlY3JlY3kgYW5kIGFyZSBub3Qg cGVybWl0dGVkIHRvIGRpc2Nsb3NlIHRoZSBjb250ZW50cyBvZiB0aGlzIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24g dG8gb3RoZXJzLg0KVGhpcyBlbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55IGZpbGVzIHRyYW5zbWl0dGVkIHdpdGggaXQg YXJlIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCBhbmQgaW50ZW5kZWQgc29sZWx5IGZvciB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBp bmRpdmlkdWFsIG9yIGVudGl0eSB0byB3aG9tIHRoZXkgYXJlIGFkZHJlc3NlZC4gSWYgeW91IGhh dmUgcmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciBwbGVhc2Ugbm90aWZ5IHRoZSBvcmlnaW5h dG9yIG9mIHRoZSBtZXNzYWdlLiBBbnkgdmlld3MgZXhwcmVzc2VkIGluIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBh cmUgdGhvc2Ugb2YgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgc2VuZGVyLg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGhhcyBiZWVu IHNjYW5uZWQgZm9yIHZpcnVzZXMgYW5kIFNwYW0gYnkgWlRFIEFudGktU3BhbSBzeXN0ZW0uDQo= --=_alternative 002B39924825799E_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkZsb3Jpbiw8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+ PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPlRoYW5rcyBmb3IgdGhlIHJlcGx5LCBzZWUg aW5saW5lIGJlbG93LjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1z ZXJpZiI+UmVnYXJkczwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+ TGl6aG9uZzwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwiPiZuYnNwOzwvZm9u dD4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+PHR0PiZxdW90O0JhbHVzLCBGbG9yaW4gU3RlbGlh biAoRmxvcmluKSZxdW90OyAmbHQ7ZmxvcmluLmJhbHVzQGFsY2F0ZWwtbHVjZW50LmNvbSZndDsN Cndyb3RlIDIwMTIvMDIvMDcgMjM6NTE6NTU6PGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBMaXpob25nLDwvdHQ+ PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9Mj48dHQ+Jmd0OyBTZWUgaW4tbGluZaGtPC90dD48L2Zv bnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPjx0dD4mZ3Q7ICZuYnNwOzwvdHQ+PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxm b250IHNpemU9Mj48dHQ+Jmd0OyBGcm9tOiBMaXpob25nIEppbiBbbWFpbHRvOmxpemhvbmcuamlu QHp0ZS5jb20uY25dDQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IFNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIEZlYnJ1YXJ5IDA3LCAyMDEy IDEyOjQ1IEFNPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBUbzogRHV0dGEsIFByYW5qYWwgSyAoUHJhbmphbCk7IEJhbHVz LCBGbG9yaW4gU3RlbGlhbiAoRmxvcmluKTsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBnZXJhbGRpbmUuY2FsdmlnbmFj QG9yYW5nZS1mdGdyb3VwLmNvbTsgb3N0b2tlc0BleHRyZW1lbmV0d29ya3MuY29tPGJyPg0KJmd0 OyBDYzogbDJ2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmc8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IFN1YmplY3Q6IENvbW1lbnRzIG9mIGRyYWZ0 LWlldGYtbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1sZHAtbWFjLW9wdC0wNTwvdHQ+PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNp emU9Mj48dHQ+Jmd0OyAmbmJzcDs8L3R0PjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+PHR0PiZn dDsgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBIaSBhdXRob3JzLCA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IFNpbmNlIHYwNCBvZiB0aGlzIGRy YWZ0LCB0aGUgUEUtSUQgVExWIGhhcyBiZWVuIHJlbW92ZWQgYW5kIHJlcGxhY2VkPGJyPg0KJmd0 OyBieSBNQUMgRmx1c2ggUGFyYW1ldGVycyBUTFYuIEluIHNlY3Rpb24gNC4xLjEsIGl0IHNheXMg JnF1b3Q7VGhlIHNvdXJjZQ0KPGJyPg0KJmd0OyAobWluZS9tZSkgaXMgZGVmaW5lZCBlaXRoZXIg YXMgdGhlIFBXIGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgTERQIDxicj4NCiZndDsgc2Vzc2lvbiBvbiB3 aGljaCB0aGUgTERQIE1BQyBXaXRoZHJhdyB3YXMgcmVjZWl2ZWQgb3Igd2l0aCB0aGUgPGJyPg0K Jmd0OyBCTUFDKHMpIGxpc3RlZCBpbiB0aGUgQk1BQyBTdWItVExWJnF1b3Q7LiA8L3R0PjwvZm9u dD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+PHR0PiZndDsgVGhhdCBtZWFucyB0aGUgTUFDIGZsdXNoaW5n IGFzc29jaWF0ZWQgUFcgZW5kcG9pbnQNCmFkZHJlc3MgaXMgZml4ZWQgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyB3aXRo IHRoZSBzZW5kaW5nIFBFLiA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IEluIHNvbWUgY2FzZXMsIGl0IG1heSBiZSB1c2Vm dWwgZm9yIGEgUEUgdG8gc2VuZCBNQUMgd2l0aGRyYXcgd2l0aA0KPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBvdGhlciBz b3VyY2UgZW5kcG9pbnQgYWRkcmVzcyBvZiBvdGhlciBQVy4gRS5nLCBpbiBhIGR1YWwtaG9tZWQg PGJyPg0KJmd0OyBzY2VuYXJpbyBpbiBmaWd1cmUgNSBvZiBSRkM0NzYyLCBpZiB0aGUgUEUxLXJz IHdpdGggcHJpbWFyeSBQVyBpcw0KPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBkb3duLCB0aGUgUEUzLXJzIHdpdGggc2Vj b25kYXJ5IFBXIGNvdWxkIHNlbmQgTUFDIHdpdGhkcmF3IHdpdGggUEUxLTxicj4NCiZndDsgcnMg YWRkcmVzcywgdG8gdGVsbCBvdGhlciBQRS1ycyB0byBmbHVzaCBhbGwgTUFDIGFkZHJlc3MgZnJv bSBQRTEtcnMuDQo8L3R0PjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+PHR0PiZndDsgJm5ic3A7 PC90dD48L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPjx0dD4mZ3Q7IEZCJmd0OyBJZiBQRTEtcnMg aXMgZG93biB0aGUgb3RoZXIgUEVzIGluIHRoZQ0KbWVzaCB3aWxsIGtub3cgYWJvdXQgaXQgPGJy Pg0KJmd0OyBpbiBhIG51bWJlciBvZiB3YXlzOiB0aGVpciB0dW5uZWwvUFcgdG8gUEUxLXJzIHdp bGwgYmUgZG93bi9uZXh0aG9wDQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IHRyYWNraW5nIChJR1ApIHdpbGwgaW5kaWNh dGUgUEUxLXJzIGlzIGdvbmUgZXRjoa0gQXMgYSByZXN1bHQgPGJyPg0KJmd0OyBldmVyeWJvZHkg d2lsbCBmbHVzaCB0aGVpciBNQUMgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGZyb20gUEUxIGFueWhvdy4gSWYgYW5vdGhl cjxicj4NCiZndDsgUEUgc2VuZHMgdGhlIE1BQyBGbHVzaCBpdCB3aWxsIGluY3JlYXNlIHRoZSBm bG9vZGluZyB0aW1lIGJ5IGRvaW5nDQo8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IGFuIHVubmVjZXNzYXJ5IHNlY29uZCBm bHVzaC48L3R0PjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTI+PHR0PltMaXpob25nXSBUaGUgcHJl Y29uZGl0aW9uIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgaXMgT0FNIHJ1bm5pbmcNCmJldHdlZW4gUEUxLXJzIGFu ZCBvdGhlciBQRXMuIElmIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIE9BTSwgaXQgaGFzIHRvIHJlbHkgb24gTERQDQpz ZXNzaW9uIHRpbWVvdXQgb3IgSUdQIGNvbnZlcmdlbmNlIHdoaWNoIG1heWJlIGEgYml0IHNsb3cu IEluIG1hbnkgY2FzZXMsDQpQRTMtcnMgd2lsbCBrbm93IHRoZSBmYWlsdXJlIG9mIHByaW1hcnkg UFcgZmFzdGVyIHRoYW4gb3RoZXIgUEUtcnMuIFdoYXQncw0KbW9yZSwgaW4gUkZDNDc2MiwgUEUz LXJzIHdpbGwgYWx3YXlzIHNlbmQgTUFDIHdpdGhkcmF3IHdpdGggZW1wdHkgTUFDIGxpc3QNCndo YXRldmVyIFBFMS1ycyBpcyBkb3duIG9yIG5vdCAoUEUzLXJzIHdpbGwgc2VuZCB3aXRoZHJhdyB3 aGVuIHNlY29uZCBQVw0KZnJvbSBzdGFuZGJ5IHRvIGFjdGl2ZSksIHdoaWNoIHdvcnNlIHRoZSBz aXR1YXRpb24uPC90dD48L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPjx0dD5PbmUgbW9yZSB1c2Vm dWwgc2NlbmFyaW8gaXMgQ0UgbXVsdGlob21pbmcgd2l0aCBJQ0NQDQpkZXBsb3llZCwgdGhlIHN0 YW5kYnkgUEUgd291bGQga25vdyB0aGUgcHJpbWFyeSBQRSBmYWlsdXJlIGZhc3RlciB0aGFuDQpv dGhlciBQRSwgYW5kIGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGJldHRlciBmb3Igb3JpZ2luYWwgc3RhbmRieSBQRSB0 byBzZW5kIE1BQyB3aXRoZHJhdw0Kd2l0aCBmYWlsZWQgUEUgYWRkcmVzcywgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiBN QUMgd2l0aGRyYXcgd2l0aCBlbXB0eSBsaXN0LjwvdHQ+PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250 IHNpemU9Mj48dHQ+Jmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgSG9wZSB0byBzZWUgeW91ciBj b21tZW50cy4gPGJyPg0KJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IFRoYW5rcyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IExpemhvbmcg PGJyPg0KJmd0OyA8YnI+DQomZ3Q7IDxicj4NCiZndDsgJm5ic3A7PC90dD48L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+ PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yPjx0dD4mZ3Q7ICZuYnNwOzwvdHQ+PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxwcmU+DQotLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KWlRF Jm5ic3A7SW5mb3JtYXRpb24mbmJzcDtTZWN1cml0eSZuYnNwO05vdGljZTombmJzcDtUaGUmbmJz cDtpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiZuYnNwO2NvbnRhaW5lZCZuYnNwO2luJm5ic3A7dGhpcyZuYnNwO21haWwm bmJzcDtpcyZuYnNwO3NvbGVseSZuYnNwO3Byb3BlcnR5Jm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDt0aGUmbmJzcDtz ZW5kZXIncyZuYnNwO29yZ2FuaXphdGlvbi4mbmJzcDtUaGlzJm5ic3A7bWFpbCZuYnNwO2NvbW11 bmljYXRpb24mbmJzcDtpcyZuYnNwO2NvbmZpZGVudGlhbC4mbmJzcDtSZWNpcGllbnRzJm5ic3A7 bmFtZWQmbmJzcDthYm92ZSZuYnNwO2FyZSZuYnNwO29ibGlnYXRlZCZuYnNwO3RvJm5ic3A7bWFp bnRhaW4mbmJzcDtzZWNyZWN5Jm5ic3A7YW5kJm5ic3A7YXJlJm5ic3A7bm90Jm5ic3A7cGVybWl0 dGVkJm5ic3A7dG8mbmJzcDtkaXNjbG9zZSZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO2NvbnRlbnRzJm5ic3A7b2Ym bmJzcDt0aGlzJm5ic3A7Y29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiZuYnNwO3RvJm5ic3A7b3RoZXJzLg0KVGhpcyZu YnNwO2VtYWlsJm5ic3A7YW5kJm5ic3A7YW55Jm5ic3A7ZmlsZXMmbmJzcDt0cmFuc21pdHRlZCZu YnNwO3dpdGgmbmJzcDtpdCZuYnNwO2FyZSZuYnNwO2NvbmZpZGVudGlhbCZuYnNwO2FuZCZuYnNw O2ludGVuZGVkJm5ic3A7c29sZWx5Jm5ic3A7Zm9yJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7dXNlJm5ic3A7b2Ym bmJzcDt0aGUmbmJzcDtpbmRpdmlkdWFsJm5ic3A7b3ImbmJzcDtlbnRpdHkmbmJzcDt0byZuYnNw O3dob20mbmJzcDt0aGV5Jm5ic3A7YXJlJm5ic3A7YWRkcmVzc2VkLiZuYnNwO0lmJm5ic3A7eW91 Jm5ic3A7aGF2ZSZuYnNwO3JlY2VpdmVkJm5ic3A7dGhpcyZuYnNwO2VtYWlsJm5ic3A7aW4mbmJz cDtlcnJvciZuYnNwO3BsZWFzZSZuYnNwO25vdGlmeSZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO29yaWdpbmF0b3Im bmJzcDtvZiZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO21lc3NhZ2UuJm5ic3A7QW55Jm5ic3A7dmlld3MmbmJzcDtl eHByZXNzZWQmbmJzcDtpbiZuYnNwO3RoaXMmbmJzcDttZXNzYWdlJm5ic3A7YXJlJm5ic3A7dGhv c2UmbmJzcDtvZiZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO2luZGl2aWR1YWwmbmJzcDtzZW5kZXIuDQpUaGlzJm5i c3A7bWVzc2FnZSZuYnNwO2hhcyZuYnNwO2JlZW4mbmJzcDtzY2FubmVkJm5ic3A7Zm9yJm5ic3A7 dmlydXNlcyZuYnNwO2FuZCZuYnNwO1NwYW0mbmJzcDtieSZuYnNwO1pURSZuYnNwO0FudGktU3Bh bSZuYnNwO3N5c3RlbS4NCjwvcHJlPg== --=_alternative 002B39924825799E_=-- From prvs=7385cffa3d=hshah@ciena.com Wed Feb 8 06:52:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C6B21F84FF for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:52:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.426 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.839, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O07cxQ2nDS3w for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:52:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.152.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C3D21F84F5 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:52:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0001124 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id q18EofGu001218; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:52:36 -0500 Received: from mdwexght01.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-28.ciena.com [63.118.36.28]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 12upsngs9b-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:52:36 -0500 Received: from MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com ([::1]) by MDWEXGHT01.ciena.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:52:36 -0500 From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: Alexander Vainshtein Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:52:34 -0500 Subject: RE: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) Thread-Topic: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) Thread-Index: AQHM5iGLH5LZfRF4eEaHY0K+xkJ4DZYzE9JA Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-6.800.1017-18696.007 x-tm-as-result: No--64.750700-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.6.7361, 1.0.260, 0.0.0000 definitions=2012-02-08_05:2012-02-08, 2012-02-08, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1202080119 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:52:44 -0000 Thanks for the compliments Sasha.. The initial few years were definitely challenging with 'upper' management (especially the PPVPN group) due its nature of Layer2 service interworking. There is LONG list of PEOPLE (including you, of course) have helped making = this=20 document a success, thanks to you all. And yes, hope the next document does not take this long (unfortunately, we = already have one on the deck, IPLS, with same lineage.. :-) thanks again.. /himanshu -----Original Message----- From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:20 AM To: Shah, Himanshu Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: FW: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2= VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) Himanshu hi, Congratulations!=20 I believe (may be wrong here) that this sets an absolute record of all time= s: - To the best of my recollection, the -00 version of draft-shah has been po= sted some time in 2001=20 - It has garnered immediate support in the community with multiple implemen= tations=20 - And, in spite of all that, it took 12 (twelve!) years to get the -19 vers= ion of the WG draft to be approved for publication. They say that late is better than never - how true! Again, congratulations! Hopefully your next one will take somewhat less tim= e... Sasha ________________________________________ From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG= [iesg-secretary@ietf.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:10 AM To: IETF-Announce Cc: l2vpn mailing list; l2vpn chair; RFC Editor Subject: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN= ' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation/ Technical Summary A Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) provides a point-to-point connection service between a pair of Customer Edge (CE) devices over an IP/MPLS packet switched network using Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) technology. It does so by binding two Attachment Circuits (ACs), each connecting a CE device with a Provider Edge (PE) device, to a Pseudowire (PW) extended between the two PEs. PWE3 defines PW types that interconnect ACs of the same technology (homogeneous ACs), e.g., both ACs being Ethernet. In general, a VPWS provides connectivity between homogeneous ACs using the existing PWE3 technology. However, if the ACs are layer2 attachment circuits of heterogeneous types (e.g., one AC is Ethernet and the other one is a Fame Relay DLCI), and solely carry IP datagrams in the corresponding packet data units' payload, it is possible to provide a VPWS that interconnects these ACs using IP Layer2 Transport PWs often referred to simply as IP PWs. This requires the PEs to perform a function known as "ARP Mediation". ARP Mediation refers to the process of resolving IP addresses to Layer 2 addresses when different address resolution protocols are used on either Attachment Circuit. The methods described in this document are applicable even when the CEs run a routing protocol between them as long as the routing protocol runs over IP. Working Group Summary This document has been in existence since the very beginning of the PPVPN and L2VPN WG's. At first, it only included support for IPv4, but subsequently was updated to include support for IPv6. Ultimately, this document provides a means of interworking IPv4-enabled ACs, IPv6-enabled ACs and dual-stack IPv4/IPv6-enabled ACs whereby the ACs are of disparate Layer2 technologies. Document Quality There are no concerns about document quality. Several implementations of this draft have existed in the field for several years. Personnel Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com) is the Document Shepherd. Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) is the Responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note In section 2 OLD A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets SHOULD perform the following logical steps: NEW A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets MUST perform the following logical steps: END =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D In section 4.3.3 - two places - end of list item 2 - end of first sentence list item 3 In section 4.3.4 second para OLD link-layer address of the local AC NEW link layer address of the PE interface attached to local AC END This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informa= tion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If = you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, p= hone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. From ping@pingpan.org Wed Feb 8 10:14:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ACAF21F86C3 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:14:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ycJjncabIMvK for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:14:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og127.obsmtp.com (exprod7og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D25BE21F86B9 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:14:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob127.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTzK7cQvYH8NV4p3cas1ZsduHUSu1N3qB@postini.com; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:14:09 PST Received: by mail-gy0-f174.google.com with SMTP id r11so519920ghr.5 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:14:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.139.104 with SMTP id qx8mr12494447obb.69.1328724849174; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:14:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.33.162 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:13:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Ping Pan Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:13:29 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) To: "Shah, Himanshu" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f83a4efa3a84004b877dcd1 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:14:11 -0000 --e89a8f83a4efa3a84004b877dcd1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Shah, Himanshu wrote: > Thanks for the compliments Sasha.. > > The initial few years were definitely challenging with 'upper' management > (especially the PPVPN group) due its nature of Layer2 service interworking. > > There is LONG list of PEOPLE (including you, of course) have helped making > this > document a success, thanks to you all. > > Look on the bright side, this draft has out-lived some of the companies that actually implemented parts of it... Oh, the things we have done for those ARP's... ;-) Congrat! Ping > And yes, hope the next document does not take this long (unfortunately, we > already > have one on the deck, IPLS, with same lineage.. :-) > > thanks again.. > /himanshu > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:20 AM > To: Shah, Himanshu > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: FW: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer > 2 VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) > > Himanshu hi, > Congratulations! > > I believe (may be wrong here) that this sets an absolute record of all > times: > - To the best of my recollection, the -00 version of draft-shah has been > posted some time in 2001 > - It has garnered immediate support in the community with multiple > implementations > - And, in spite of all that, it took 12 (twelve!) years to get the -19 > version of the WG draft to be approved for publication. > > They say that late is better than never - how true! > > Again, congratulations! Hopefully your next one will take somewhat less > time... > > Sasha > > > > ________________________________________ > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The > IESG [iesg-secretary@ietf.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:10 AM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: l2vpn mailing list; l2vpn chair; RFC Editor > Subject: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 > VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) > > The IESG has approved the following document: > - 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN' > (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) as a Proposed Standard > > This document is the product of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks > Working Group. > > The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. > > A URL of this Internet Draft is: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation/ > > > > > Technical Summary > > A Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) provides a point-to-point > connection service between a pair of Customer Edge (CE) devices > over an IP/MPLS packet switched network using Pseudowire > Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) technology. It does so by > binding two Attachment Circuits (ACs), each connecting a CE > device with a Provider Edge (PE) device, to a Pseudowire (PW) > extended between the two PEs. PWE3 defines PW types > that interconnect ACs of the same technology (homogeneous ACs), > e.g., both ACs being Ethernet. In general, a VPWS provides > connectivity between homogeneous ACs using the existing > PWE3 technology. However, if the ACs are layer2 attachment > circuits of heterogeneous types (e.g., one AC is Ethernet and > the other one is a Fame Relay DLCI), and solely carry IP > datagrams in the corresponding packet data units' payload, > it is possible to provide a VPWS that interconnects these > ACs using IP Layer2 Transport PWs often referred to simply > as IP PWs. This requires the PEs to perform a function known > as "ARP Mediation". ARP Mediation refers to the process of > resolving IP addresses to Layer 2 addresses when different > address resolution protocols are used on either Attachment > Circuit. The methods described in this document are applicable > even when the CEs run a routing protocol between them > as long as the routing protocol runs over IP. > > Working Group Summary > > This document has been in existence since the very beginning > of the PPVPN and L2VPN WG's. At first, it only included > support for IPv4, but subsequently was updated to include > support for IPv6. Ultimately, this document provides a means > of interworking IPv4-enabled ACs, IPv6-enabled ACs and > dual-stack IPv4/IPv6-enabled ACs whereby the ACs are of > disparate Layer2 technologies. > > Document Quality > There are no concerns about document quality. > Several implementations of this draft have existed in > the field for several years. > > Personnel > Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com) is the Document Shepherd. > Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) is the Responsible > Area Director. > > RFC Editor Note > > In section 2 > > OLD > A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets SHOULD > perform the following logical steps: > NEW > A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets MUST > perform the following logical steps: > END > ===== > In section 4.3.3 - two places > - end of list item 2 > - end of first sentence list item 3 > In section 4.3.4 second para > > OLD > link-layer address of the local AC > NEW > link layer address of the PE interface attached to local AC > END > > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains > information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI > Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us > by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies > thereof. > > --e89a8f83a4efa3a84004b877dcd1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Shah, Himans= hu <hshah@ciena.com= > wrote:
Thanks for the compliments Sasha..

The initial few years were definitely challenging with 'upper' mana= gement
(especially the PPVPN group) due its nature of Layer2 service interworking.=

There is LONG list of PEOPLE (including you, of course) have helped making = this
document a success, thanks to you all.


Look on the bright side, this draft ha= s out-lived some of the companies that actually implemented parts of it... = Oh, the things we have done for those ARP's... ;-) =C2=A0
Congrat!

Ping
=C2=A0
And yes, hope the next document does not take this long (unfortunately, we = already
have one on the deck, IPLS, with same lineage.. :-)

thanks again..
/himanshu

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:20 AM
To: Shah, Himanshu
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: FW: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Lay= er 2 VPN' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt)<= br>
Himanshu hi,
Congratulations!

I believe (may be wrong here) that this sets an absolute record of all time= s:
- To the best of my recollection, the -00 version of draft-shah has been po= sted some time in 2001
- It has garnered immediate support in the community with multiple implemen= tations
- And, in spite of all that, it took 12 (twelve!) years to get the -19 vers= ion of the WG draft to be approved for publication.

They say that late is better than never - how true!

Again, congratulations! Hopefully your next one will take somewhat less tim= e...

Sasha



________________________________________
From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org = [l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of The IESG [iesg-secretar= y@ietf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:10 AM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: l2vpn mailing list; l2vpn chair; RFC Editor
Subject: Protocol Action: 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2= VPN' =C2=A0 =C2=A0to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation= -19.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN'
=C2=A0(draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-med= iation/




Technical Summary

A Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) provides a point-to-point
connection service between a pair of Customer Edge (CE) devices
over an IP/MPLS packet switched network using Pseudowire
Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) technology. =C2=A0It does so by
binding two Attachment Circuits (ACs), each connecting a CE
device with a Provider Edge (PE) device, to a Pseudowire (PW)
extended between the two PEs. PWE3 defines PW types
that interconnect ACs of the same technology (homogeneous ACs),
e.g., both ACs being Ethernet. In general, a VPWS provides
connectivity between homogeneous ACs using the existing
PWE3 technology. However, if the ACs are layer2 attachment
circuits of heterogeneous types (e.g., one AC is Ethernet and
the other one is a Fame Relay DLCI), and solely carry IP
datagrams in the corresponding packet data units' payload,
it is possible to provide a VPWS that interconnects these
ACs using IP Layer2 Transport PWs often referred to simply
as IP PWs. This requires the PEs to perform a function known
as "ARP Mediation". =C2=A0ARP Mediation refers to the process of<= br> resolving IP addresses to Layer 2 addresses when different
address resolution protocols are used on either Attachment
Circuit. =C2=A0The methods described in this document are applicable
even when the CEs run a routing protocol between them
as long as the routing protocol runs over IP.

Working Group Summary

This document has been in existence since the very beginning
of the PPVPN and L2VPN WG's. =C2=A0At first, it only included
support for IPv4, but subsequently was updated to include
support for IPv6. Ultimately, this document provides a means
of interworking IPv4-enabled ACs, IPv6-enabled ACs and
dual-stack IPv4/IPv6-enabled ACs whereby the ACs are of
disparate Layer2 technologies.

Document Quality
There are no concerns about document quality.
Several implementations of =C2=A0this draft have existed in
the field for several years.

Personnel
Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@ver= izon.com) is the Document Shepherd.
Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) is the Responsible
Area Director.

RFC Editor Note

In section 2

OLD
A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets SHOULD
perform the following logical steps:
NEW
A PE that is to perform ARP Mediation for IPv6 packets MUST
perform the following logical steps:
END
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
In section 4.3.3 - two places
- end of list item 2
- end of first sentence list item 3
In section 4.3.4 second para

OLD
link-layer address of the local AC
NEW
link layer address of the PE interface attached to local AC
END

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informa= tion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If = you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, p= hone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.


--e89a8f83a4efa3a84004b877dcd1-- From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Thu Feb 9 04:02:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1151521F851C for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 04:02:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.358 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.480, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EDP6kNPOykKv for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 04:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E3021F8517 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 04:02:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 56690577109098; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:35:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 46026.577109098; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:02:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q19C26Cm012871 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:02:06 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: E-Tree requirement discussion MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:00:39 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-09 20:02:08, Serialize complete at 2012-02-09 20:02:08 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00420D644825799F_=" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn q19C26Cm012871 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:02:27 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 00420D644825799F_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi all, Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF E-Tree capabilities, the cummnication between root and leaf is allowed, and communication between leaf and leaf is isolated. Does any provider has requirement to allow some part of leafs to be communicated, and some part of leafs to be isolated? Such kind of communication model is a bit like the private VLAN in RFC5517, and of course, different with E-Tree. Thanks Lizhong -------------------------------------------------------- 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 00420D644825799F_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi all,
Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF E-Tree capabilities, the cummnication between root and leaf is allowed, and communication between leaf and leaf is isolated. Does any provider has requirement to allow some part of leafs to be communicated, and some part of leafs to be isolated?
Such kind of communication model is a bit like the private VLAN in RFC5517, and of course, different with E-Tree.

Thanks
Lizhong
--------------------------------------------------------
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 00420D644825799F_=-- From josh.rogers@twcable.com Thu Feb 9 07:02:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7ADC21F872B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:02:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.597, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_PRODUCT=0.333] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cy7G2dzNgC7p for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:02:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE71C21F86F8 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:02:10 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.14 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,390,1325480400"; d="scan'208,217";a="336096021" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.14]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 09 Feb 2012 10:01:06 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS08.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.36]) by PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.14]) with mapi; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:01:48 -0500 From: "Rogers, Josh" To: Lizhong Jin Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:01:44 -0500 Subject: Re: E-Tree requirement discussion Thread-Topic: E-Tree requirement discussion Thread-Index: AcznO76NHBYDajf/SSO2hdjzotEq+g== Message-ID: <4F33DFD8.7010205@twcable.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4F33DFD87010205twcablecom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:02:12 -0000 --_000_4F33DFD87010205twcablecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lizhong, I'm not following how RFC5517 is similar to allowing 'some part of leafs to= communicate'? Do you mean leaf-leaf communication? I don't think Private= VLAN's are intended to do that, however the way Private VLAN's behave is v= ery similar to what the ETREE req doc outlines. Today, we use BGP-VPLS to accomplish ETREE (or as close as we can get anyho= w) by importing/exporting inversed vrf-targets between root and leaf sites: root sites import target:123:1 export target:123:2 leaf sites import target:123:2 export target:123:1 We really enjoy/prefer BGP-VPLS for many reasons, however shortcomings of o= ur vendor's implementation presents some challenges: 1. root-root communication is not allowed, since the root site cannot 'impo= rt' more than one target. 2. controlling PW creation using vrf-targets this way is based on PE to PE = communication, not AC to AC communication, so it is not granular enough. W= e control this with some unique knobs that allow local switching on the PE = but not communication between AC and VSI, and/or disallow local switching, = but only communicate between AC and VSI. There are still topological use c= ases that we cannot solve, however, which leaves us intently following the = handful of proposed ETREE methods that could solve this challenge. Regarding your question about whether we need to allow 'some' leaf-leaf com= munication, the answer for us is 'no', generally we do not, and if that eve= r comes up, we'd let our customer know that was not part of the product off= ering, and they would be encouraged to use a basic any to any VPLS service,= and then use their own edge equipment to control which sites communicate t= o which sites (routing policy for instance), or sell them additional servic= e(s) that could be used to communicate between the leaf sites they are inte= rested in. Hope that helps, Josh On 02/09/2012 06:00 AM, Lizhong Jin wrote: Hi all, Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF E-Tree capabilities, the cummnicatio= n between root and leaf is allowed, and communication between leaf and leaf= is isolated. Does any provider has requirement to allow some part of leafs= to be communicated, and some part of leafs to be isolated? Such kind of communication model is a bit like the private VLAN in RFC5517,= and of course, different with E-Tree. Thanks Lizhong -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is = solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is co= nfidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and ar= e 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 th= e 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. ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. --_000_4F33DFD87010205twcablecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lizhong,

I'm not following how RFC5517 is simil= ar to allowing 'some part of leafs to communicate'?  Do you mean leaf-= leaf communication?  I don't think Private VLAN's are intended to do t= hat, however the way Private VLAN's behave is very similar to what the ETREE req doc outlines. 

Today, we use BGP-VPLS to accomplish ETREE (or as close as we can get anyho= w) by importing/exporting inversed vrf-targets between root and leaf sites:=


root sites
import target:123:1
export target:123:2

leaf sites
import target:123:2
export target:123:1

We really enjoy/prefer BGP-VPLS for many reasons, however shortcomings of o= ur vendor's implementation presents some challenges:
1. root-root communication is not allowed, since the root site cannot 'impo= rt' more than one target.
2. controlling PW creation using vrf-targets this way is based on PE to PE = communication, not AC to AC communication, so it is not granular enough.&nb= sp; We control this with some unique knobs that allow local switching on th= e PE but not communication between AC and VSI, and/or disallow local switching, but only communicate between AC = and VSI.  There are still topological use cases that we cannot solve, = however, which leaves us intently following the handful of proposed ETREE m= ethods that could solve this challenge.

Regarding your question about whether we need to allow 'some' leaf-leaf com= munication, the answer for us is 'no', generally we do not, and if that eve= r comes up, we'd let our customer know that was not part of the product off= ering, and they would be encouraged to use a basic any to any VPLS service, and then use their own edge equipm= ent to control which sites communicate to which sites (routing policy for i= nstance), or sell them additional service(s) that could be used to communic= ate between the leaf sites they are interested in.

Hope that helps,
Josh


On 02/09/2012 06:00 AM, Lizhong Jin wrote:

Hi all,
Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF= E-Tree capabilities, the cummnication between root and leaf is allowed, an= d communication between leaf and leaf is isolated. Does any provider has re= quirement to allow some part of leafs to be communicated, and some part of leafs to be isolated?
Such kind of communication model is a = bit like the private VLAN in RFC5517, and of course, different with E-Tree.=

Thanks
Lizhong
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information&n=
bsp;contained in this mail is solely property=
 of the sender's organization. This mail =
;communication is confidential. Recipients named a=
bove are obligated to maintain secrecy and&nb=
sp;are not permitted to disclose the contents=
 of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with&nbs=
p;it are confidential and intended solely for=
 the use of the individual or entity&nbs=
p;to whom they are addressed. If you hav=
e received this email in error please no=
tify the originator of the message. Any =
views expressed in this message are those&nbs=
p;of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses&nbs=
p;and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

This E-mail and any of its a= ttachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is = privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner = Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you a= re not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that = any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to th= e contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have receiv= ed this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanent= ly delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
 --_000_4F33DFD87010205twcablecom_-- From bedard.phil@gmail.com Thu Feb 9 12:17:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A9121E800F for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:17:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.699, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ITmFQ26MtOjQ for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:17:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCAF11E8072 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:17:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3so1307411yen.31 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:17:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=WcosEb2snsSAb+uN3wuU48QP7rjW2rhowJNi1Xs4JtQ=; b=hBMxNHVDwbTcPgkWBzAZ7pW2701NYgQz5t+dt9AkzGPctsb7hwBPDfOHWoItBVpUnG qKI/8CJeRW977TNtnTuHWUHXZc4vv4/Gj4Veo7APNFyMx6z5ObjO8DKa2WIjsUi3rwBF TLUWtB8hVoQDSiImAIbsTyCe28RafPvM0Y/0M= Received: by 10.236.197.74 with SMTP id s50mr4714007yhn.127.1328818635865; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:17:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.104] (66-168-187-238.dhcp.gwnt.ga.charter.com. [66.168.187.238]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm8330567ant.15.2012.02.09.12.17.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:17:15 -0800 (PST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-35983FEC-4BC1-4237-89E8-86532735C3F3 Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405) From: Phil Subject: Re: E-Tree requirement discussion Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:17:11 -0500 To: Lizhong Jin Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:17:17 -0000 --Apple-Mail-35983FEC-4BC1-4237-89E8-86532735C3F3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii There are times when some leaf to leaf communication is necessary without th= ose sites being root nodes. Similar to the community VLAN concept from pvla= ns. Most deployments have a single root and many leaves but I have seen ins= tances where people want a backend connection between two leaf sites. Usual= ly these days it means creating a new p2p service between the sites.=20 Phil On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Lizhong Jin wrote: >=20 > Hi all,=20 > Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF E-Tree capabilities, the cummnicati= on between root and leaf is allowed, and communication between leaf and leaf= is isolated. Does any provider has requirement to allow some part of leafs t= o be communicated, and some part of leafs to be isolated?=20 > Such kind of communication model is a bit like the private VLAN in RFC5517= , and of course, different with E-Tree.=20 >=20 > Thanks=20 > Lizhong > -------------------------------------------------------- > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is= solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is co= nfidential. 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. I= f you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the m= essage. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual send= er. > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system= . --Apple-Mail-35983FEC-4BC1-4237-89E8-86532735C3F3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
There are times when some leaf to leaf communication is necessary without those sites being root nodes.  Similar to the community VLAN concept from pvlans.  Most deployments have a single root and many leaves but I have seen instances where people want a backend connection between two leaf sites.  Usually these days it means creating a new p2p service between the sites. 


Hi all,
Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF E-Tree capabilities, the cummnication between root and leaf is allowed, and communication between leaf and leaf is isolated. Does any provider has requirement to allow some part of leafs to be communicated, and some part of leafs to be isolated?
Such kind of communication model is a bit like the private VLAN in RFC5517, and of course, different with E-Tree.

Thanks
Lizhong
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
--Apple-Mail-35983FEC-4BC1-4237-89E8-86532735C3F3-- From prvs=138676d8b8=edwin.mallette@bhnis.com Thu Feb 9 12:40:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E920711E8085 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:40:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zZE5LrJydK6x for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:40:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.mybrighthouse.com (MX3.mybrighthouse.com [209.16.122.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F186D11E8072 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:40:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (mx3 [127.0.0.1]) by mx3.mybrighthouse.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id q19Kdwwv020273; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:40:03 -0500 Received: from cnedcex1.corp.local ([10.225.5.11]) by mx3.mybrighthouse.com with ESMTP id 12vmx204cu-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:40:03 -0500 Received: from CNEDCEX3.corp.local ([fe80::ac6f:a581:866a:5f86]) by CNEDCEX1.corp.local ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:40:03 -0500 From: "Mallette, Edwin" To: Lizhong Jin , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: E-Tree requirement discussion Thread-Topic: E-Tree requirement discussion Thread-Index: AQHM5yKyr5ddLw+TuE+djMHAtyLtoJY1B7EA Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:40:02 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.225.1.248] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CB5997F721B72edwinmallettebhniscom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=8 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1202090213 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:40:06 -0000 --_000_CB5997F721B72edwinmallettebhniscom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lizhong, So I can see how such a capability could be useful for some corner case dep= loyments, however, I wouldn't associate that capability to E-Tree. In gene= ral, I'm comfortable with constructing multiple services to support the ne= ed, similar to what Phil suggested in a previous response. Ed From: Lizhong Jin > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:00:39 +0800 To: > Subject: E-Tree requirement discussion Hi all, Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF E-Tree capabilities, the cummnicatio= n between root and leaf is allowed, and communication between leaf and leaf= is isolated. Does any provider has requirement to allow some part of leafs= to be communicated, and some part of leafs to be isolated? Such kind of communication model is a bit like the private VLAN in RFC5517,= and of course, different with E-Tree. Thanks Lizhong -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is = solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is co= nfidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and ar= e 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 th= e 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. ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is privile= ged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not th= e intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately b= y return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy it. --_000_CB5997F721B72edwinmallettebhniscom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0810F452E425284C88A86F0BEBF0BCC0@mybrighthouse.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lizhong,

So I can see how such a capability could be useful for some corner cas= e deployments, however, I wouldn't associate that capability to E-Tree. &nb= sp;In general,  I'm comfortable with constructing multiple services to= support the need, similar to what Phil suggested in a previous response.

Ed

From: Lizhong Jin <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:00:39 += ;0800
To: <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: E-Tree requirement discuss= ion


Hi all,
Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF= E-Tree capabilities, the cummnication between root and leaf is allowed, an= d communication between leaf and leaf is isolated. Does any provider has re= quirement to allow some part of leafs to be communicated, and some part of leafs to be isolated?
Such kind of communication model is a = bit like the private VLAN in RFC5517, and of course, different with E-Tree.=

Thanks
Lizhong
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information&n=
bsp;contained in this mail is solely property=
 of the sender's organization. This mail =
;communication is confidential. Recipients named a=
bove are obligated to maintain secrecy and&nb=
sp;are not permitted to disclose the contents=
 of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with&nbs=
p;it are confidential and intended solely for=
 the use of the individual or entity&nbs=
p;to whom they are addressed. If you hav=
e received this email in error please no=
tify the originator of the message. Any =
views expressed in this message are those&nbs=
p;of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses&nbs=
p;and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is privile= ged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not th= e intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately b= y return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy it.
 --_000_CB5997F721B72edwinmallettebhniscom_-- From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Thu Feb 9 18:38:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B7521E803B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:38:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.395 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.443, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4dIsnw4rAblL for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3168821E8062 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:38:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 56690577109098; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:11:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 5467.3663854331; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:38:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q1A2cgn0022469; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:38:42 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: <4F33DFD8.7010205@twcable.com> To: "Rogers, Josh" , Edwin.Mallette@bhnis.com, bedard.phil@gmail.com Subject: Re: E-Tree requirement discussion MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:37:50 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-10 10:38:44, Serialize complete at 2012-02-10 10:38:44 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000E8789482579A0_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q1A2cgn0022469 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:38:52 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 000E8789482579A0_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Josh, Phil, Edwin, Thank you very much for the discussion. It seems all prefer to using additional service to provide leaf-to-leaf communication, and let VPLS ETree as defined in MEF. Any other opinions from the list? BTW, as Phil pointed out, community VLAN concept in PVLAN in RFC5517 provides similar leaf-to-leaf communication. Regards Lizhong > > On 02/09/2012 06:00 AM, Lizhong Jin wrote: > > Hi all, > Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF E-Tree capabilities, the > cummnication between root and leaf is allowed, and communication > between leaf and leaf is isolated. Does any provider has requirement > to allow some part of leafs to be communicated, and some part of > leafs to be isolated? > Such kind of communication model is a bit like the private VLAN in > RFC5517, and of course, different with E-Tree. > > Thanks > Lizhong -------------------------------------------------------- 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 000E8789482579A0_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Josh, Phil, Edwin,
Thank you very much for the discussion. It seems all prefer to using additional service to provide leaf-to-leaf communication, and let VPLS ETree as defined in MEF. Any other opinions from the list?
BTW, as Phil pointed out, community VLAN concept in PVLAN in RFC5517 provides similar leaf-to-leaf communication.

Regards
Lizhong
 

>
> On 02/09/2012 06:00 AM, Lizhong Jin wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF E-Tree capabilities, the
> cummnication between root and leaf is allowed, and communication
> between leaf and leaf is isolated. Does any provider has requirement
> to allow some part of leafs to be communicated, and some part of
> leafs to be isolated?
> Such kind of communication model is a bit like the private VLAN in
> RFC5517, and of course, different with E-Tree.
>
> Thanks
> Lizhong
--------------------------------------------------------
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 000E8789482579A0_=-- From Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn Thu Feb 9 21:22:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7185611E8075 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:22:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1BHnAzCVHT4J for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnshjsmin03.alcatel-sbell.com.cn (cnshjsmin03.alcatel-sbell.com.cn [211.144.215.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2326F21F8543 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:22:44 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: ac189297-b7b8fae000001b86-06-4f34a9a107df Received: from CNSHJCASHUB02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com (Unknown_Domain [135.251.50.72]) by cnshjsmin03.alcatel-sbell.com.cn (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 3F.AB.07046.1A9A43F4; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:22:41 +0800 (HKT) Received: from CNSHJMBX01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com ([135.251.50.101]) by CNSHJCASHUB02.ad4.ad.alcatel.com ([135.251.50.72]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.000; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:22:41 +0800 From: HUANG Feng F To: Lizhong Jin , "Rogers, Josh" , "Edwin.Mallette@bhnis.com" , "bedard.phil@gmail.com" Subject: RE: E-Tree requirement discussion Thread-Topic: E-Tree requirement discussion Thread-Index: AQHM550m25O3sgTqTUWn9CL5ucbhMZY1l40A Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:22:40 +0000 Message-ID: <796B6F5769D3E140A2BC3AAF7AC8D57F08D621@cnshjmbx01> References: <4F33DFD8.7010205@twcable.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.24.143.56] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_796B6F5769D3E140A2BC3AAF7AC8D57F08D621cnshjmbx01_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:22:52 -0000 --_000_796B6F5769D3E140A2BC3AAF7AC8D57F08D621cnshjmbx01_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RGVhciBhbGwsDQogICAgIEZvciBFLVRyZWUgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBNRUYgYW5kIEVWUFJNIGluIElU VS1UIEcuODAxMS40LCBsZWFmIHRvIGxlYWYgbWVzc2FnZSBpcyBwcm9oaWJpdGVkLCBhc3ltbWV0 cmljYWwgVkxBTiBjYW4gYmUgdXNlZCwgcHJvcG9zZSBub3QgZGVmaW5lIG5ldyBzZXJ2aWNlIHR5 cGUgYW5kIGJlaGF2aW9yLCBpdCBtYWtlIHRoZSBpbmR1c3RyeSBjb25mdXNpb24uDQpCLlIuDQpG ZW5nIEh1YW5nDQoNCg0KRnJvbTogbDJ2cG4tYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmwydnBu LWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBMaXpob25nIEppbg0KU2VudDogMjAxMsTq MtTCMTDI1SAxMDozOA0KVG86IFJvZ2VycywgSm9zaDsgRWR3aW4uTWFsbGV0dGVAYmhuaXMuY29t OyBiZWRhcmQucGhpbEBnbWFpbC5jb20NCkNjOiBsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6 IEUtVHJlZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudCBkaXNjdXNzaW9uDQoNCg0KSm9zaCwgUGhpbCwgRWR3aW4sDQpU aGFuayB5b3UgdmVyeSBtdWNoIGZvciB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbi4gSXQgc2VlbXMgYWxsIHByZWZl ciB0byB1c2luZyBhZGRpdGlvbmFsIHNlcnZpY2UgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBsZWFmLXRvLWxlYWYgY29t bXVuaWNhdGlvbiwgYW5kIGxldCBWUExTIEVUcmVlIGFzIGRlZmluZWQgaW4gTUVGLiBBbnkgb3Ro ZXIgb3BpbmlvbnMgZnJvbSB0aGUgbGlzdD8NCkJUVywgYXMgUGhpbCBwb2ludGVkIG91dCwgY29t bXVuaXR5IFZMQU4gY29uY2VwdCBpbiBQVkxBTiBpbiBSRkM1NTE3IHByb3ZpZGVzIHNpbWlsYXIg bGVhZi10by1sZWFmIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24uDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMNCkxpemhvbmcNCg0KDQo+DQo+ IE9uIDAyLzA5LzIwMTIgMDY6MDAgQU0sIExpemhvbmcgSmluIHdyb3RlOg0KPg0KPiBIaSBhbGws DQo+IFNpbmNlIFZQTFMgRS10cmVlIHByb3ZpZGUgc3RhbmRhcmQgTUVGIEUtVHJlZSBjYXBhYmls aXRpZXMsIHRoZQ0KPiBjdW1tbmljYXRpb24gYmV0d2VlbiByb290IGFuZCBsZWFmIGlzIGFsbG93 ZWQsIGFuZCBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uDQo+IGJldHdlZW4gbGVhZiBhbmQgbGVhZiBpcyBpc29sYXRl ZC4gRG9lcyBhbnkgcHJvdmlkZXIgaGFzIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50DQo+IHRvIGFsbG93IHNvbWUgcGFy dCBvZiBsZWFmcyB0byBiZSBjb21tdW5pY2F0ZWQsIGFuZCBzb21lIHBhcnQgb2YNCj4gbGVhZnMg dG8gYmUgaXNvbGF0ZWQ/DQo+IFN1Y2gga2luZCBvZiBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIG1vZGVsIGlzIGEg Yml0IGxpa2UgdGhlIHByaXZhdGUgVkxBTiBpbg0KPiBSRkM1NTE3LCBhbmQgb2YgY291cnNlLCBk aWZmZXJlbnQgd2l0aCBFLVRyZWUuDQo+DQo+IFRoYW5rcw0KPiBMaXpob25nDQoNCg0KDQotLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KDQpa VEUgSW5mb3JtYXRpb24gU2VjdXJpdHkgTm90aWNlOiBUaGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gY29udGFpbmVk IGluIHRoaXMgbWFpbCBpcyBzb2xlbHkgcHJvcGVydHkgb2YgdGhlIHNlbmRlcidzIG9yZ2FuaXph dGlvbi4gVGhpcyBtYWlsIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gaXMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLiBSZWNpcGllbnRz IG5hbWVkIGFib3ZlIGFyZSBvYmxpZ2F0ZWQgdG8gbWFpbnRhaW4gc2VjcmVjeSBhbmQgYXJlIG5v dCBwZXJtaXR0ZWQgdG8gZGlzY2xvc2UgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnRzIG9mIHRoaXMgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlv biB0byBvdGhlcnMuDQoNClRoaXMgZW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBmaWxlcyB0cmFuc21pdHRlZCB3aXRo IGl0IGFyZSBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5kIGludGVuZGVkIHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0 aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBvciBlbnRpdHkgdG8gd2hvbSB0aGV5IGFyZSBhZGRyZXNzZWQuIElmIHlv dSBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgb3Jp Z2luYXRvciBvZiB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZS4gQW55IHZpZXdzIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIG1lc3Nh Z2UgYXJlIHRob3NlIG9mIHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIHNlbmRlci4NCg0KVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGhh cyBiZWVuIHNjYW5uZWQgZm9yIHZpcnVzZXMgYW5kIFNwYW0gYnkgWlRFIEFudGktU3BhbSBzeXN0 ZW0uDQo= --_000_796B6F5769D3E140A2BC3AAF7AC8D57F08D621cnshjmbx01_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

     For E-Tree defined in MEF and EVPRM= in ITU-T G.8011.4, leaf to leaf message is prohibited, asymmetrical VLAN c= an be used, propose not define new service type and behavior, it make the industry confusion.<= /span>

B.R.

Feng Huang

 

 

From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.= org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lizhong Jin
Sent: 2012=C4=EA2=D4=C210=C8= =D5 10:38
To: Rogers, Josh; Edwin.Mallette@bhnis.com; bedard.phil@gmail.com Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: E-Tree requirement discussion<= /p>

 


Josh, Phil, Edwin,
Thank you very much for the discussion. It= seems all prefer to using additional service to provide leaf-to-leaf commu= nication, and let VPLS ETree as defined in MEF. Any other opinions from the list?
BTW, as Phil pointed out, community VLAN c= oncept in PVLAN in RFC5517 provides similar leaf-to-leaf communication.

Regards
Lizhong
 

>
> On 02/09/2012 06:00 AM, Lizhong Jin wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Since VPLS E-tree provide standard MEF E-Tree capabilities, the
> cummnication between root and leaf is allowed, and communication <= /tt>
> between leaf and leaf is isolated. Does any provider has requireme= nt
> to allow some part of leafs to be communicated, and some part of <= /tt>
> leafs to be isolated?
> Such kind of communication model is a bit like the private VLAN in=
> RFC5517, and of course, different with E-Tree.
>
> Thanks
> Lizhong

 
-------------------------------------------------=
-------
ZTE Information Security Notice:&n=
bsp;The information contained in this mail is=
 solely property of the sender's organization=
. This mail communication is confidential. Re=
cipients named above are obligated to maintai=
n secrecy and are not permitted to discl=
ose the contents of this communication to&nbs=
p;others.
This email and any files =
;transmitted with it are confidential and int=
ended solely for the use of the individu=
al or entity to whom they are addressed.=
 If you have received this email in =
;error please notify the originator of the&nb=
sp;message. Any views expressed in this messa=
ge are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned=
 for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam&n=
bsp;system.
--_000_796B6F5769D3E140A2BC3AAF7AC8D57F08D621cnshjmbx01_-- From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Feb 10 13:47:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9992521F84EE for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:47:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.965 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kkM68kxgz2qW for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:47:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE26621F84EC for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:47:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q1ALlPP6025688 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:47:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.112]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q1ALlOZg028663 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:47:25 -0600 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.112]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:47:24 -0600 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: Lizhong Jin Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:47:22 -0600 Subject: RE: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 Thread-Topic: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 Thread-Index: AczmNpXd8+3o/N1USCSnLnkTt1vYqgCBHq9Q Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED62799@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED61D96@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED62799USNAVSXCHMBSC_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "ostokes@extremenetworks.com" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:47:35 -0000 --_000_2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED62799USNAVSXCHMBSC_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lizhong, From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:51 PM To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) Cc: geraldine.calvignac@orange-ftgroup.com; l2vpn@ietf.org; ostokes@extreme= networks.com; Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal) Subject: RE: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 Florin, Thanks for the reply, see inline below. Regards Lizhong "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" wrote 20= 12/02/07 23:51:55: > Lizhong, > See in-line... > > From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn] > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:45 AM > To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); > geraldine.calvignac@orange-ftgroup.com; ostokes@extremenetworks.com > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 > > > Hi authors, > Since v04 of this draft, the PE-ID TLV has been removed and replaced > by MAC Flush Parameters TLV. In section 4.1.1, it says "The source > (mine/me) is defined either as the PW associated with the LDP > session on which the LDP MAC Withdraw was received or with the > BMAC(s) listed in the BMAC Sub-TLV". > That means the MAC flushing associated PW endpoint address is fixed > with the sending PE. > In some cases, it may be useful for a PE to send MAC withdraw with > other source endpoint address of other PW. E.g, in a dual-homed > scenario in figure 5 of RFC4762, if the PE1-rs with primary PW is > down, the PE3-rs with secondary PW could send MAC withdraw with PE1- > rs address, to tell other PE-rs to flush all MAC address from PE1-rs. > > FB> If PE1-rs is down the other PEs in the mesh will know about it > in a number of ways: their tunnel/PW to PE1-rs will be down/nexthop > tracking (IGP) will indicate PE1-rs is gone etc... As a result > everybody will flush their MAC addresses from PE1 anyhow. If another > PE sends the MAC Flush it will increase the flooding time by doing > an unnecessary second flush. [Lizhong] The precondition is that there is OAM running between PE1-rs and = other PEs. If there is no OAM, it has to rely on LDP session timeout or IGP= convergence which maybe a bit slow. In many cases, PE3-rs will know the fa= ilure of primary PW faster than other PE-rs. What's more, in RFC4762, PE3-r= s will always send MAC withdraw with empty MAC list whatever PE1-rs is down= or not (PE3-rs will send withdraw when second PW from standby to active), = which worse the situation. FB>I think you are saying that there will be problems if both MAC Withdraw = behaviors are active which is true. Definitely only one type of MAC Withdra= w should be used for a certain Multi-homing relation. We have the positive/= negative flag indication to differentiate between them. The procedure in RF= C 4762 is the default one, the negative MAC Flush can be activated as an al= ternative. One more useful scenario is CE multihoming with ICCP deployed, the standby = PE would know the primary PE failure faster than other PE, and it would be = better for original standby PE to send MAC withdraw with failed PE address,= instead of MAC withdraw with empty list. FB> Whether it is faster or not depends really on which failure scenarios a= re considered the most common. If the active link fails the PE that owns th= e failed link will know right away so the current procedure in the draft is= faster. This was one of the use cases I heard more often justifying the ne= ed for negative MAC Flush. Even in the PE failure case the next hop trackin= g in IGP can be quite fast, not to speak about OAM CCMs. > > > Hope to see your comments. > > Thanks > Lizhong > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is = solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is co= nfidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and ar= e 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 th= e 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. --_000_2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED62799USNAVSXCHMBSC_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Lizhong,

 

From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:51 PM
To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)
Cc: geraldine.calvignac@orange-ftgroup.com; l2vpn@ietf.org; ostokes@extremenetworks.com; Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)
Subject: RE: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05


Florin,
Thanks fo= r the reply, see inline below.
Regards
Lizhong

"Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" <florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote 2012/02/07 23:51:55:
> Lizhong,
> See in-lineR= 30;
>  
> From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:45 AM
> To: Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin);
> geraldine.calvignac@orange-ftgroup.com; ostokes@extremenetworks.co= m
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: Comments of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05 >  
>
> Hi authors,
> Since v04 of this draft, the PE-ID TLV has been removed and replac= ed
> by MAC Flush Parameters TLV. In section 4.1.1, it says "The source
> (mine/me) is defined either as the PW associated with the LDP
> session on which the LDP MAC Withdraw was received or with the
> BMAC(s) listed in the BMAC Sub-TLV".
> That means the MAC flushing associated PW endpoint address is fixe= d
> with the sending PE.
> In some cases, it may be useful for a PE to send MAC withdraw with=
> other source endpoint address of other PW. E.g, in a dual-homed
> scenario in figure 5 of RFC4762, if the PE1-rs with primary PW is =
> down, the PE3-rs with secondary PW could send MAC withdraw with PE= 1-
> rs address, to tell other PE-rs to flush all MAC address from PE1-= rs.
>  
> FB> If PE1-rs is down the other PEs in the mesh will know about= it
> in a number of ways: their tunnel/PW to PE1-rs will be down/nextho= p
> tracking (IGP) will indicate PE1-rs is gone etc… As a result
> everybody will flush their MAC addresses from PE1 anyhow. If anoth= er
> PE sends the MAC Flush it will increase the flooding time by doing=
> an unnecessary second flush.
[Lizhong] The precondition is that there is OAM running between PE1-rs = and other PEs. If there is no OAM, it has to rely on LDP session timeout or IGP convergence which maybe a bit slow. In many cases, PE3-rs will know the fai= lure of primary PW faster than other PE-rs. What's more, in RFC4762, PE3-rs will always send MAC withdraw with empty MAC list whatever PE1-rs is down or not (PE3-rs will send withdraw when second PW from standby to active), which wo= rse the situation.

FB>I think you are saying that there will be problems if = both MAC Withdraw behaviors are active which is true. Definitely only one type o= f MAC Withdraw should be used for a certain Multi-homing relation. We have th= e positive/negative flag indication to differentiate between them. The proced= ure in RFC 4762 is the default one, the negative MAC Flush can be activated as = an alternative.


One more useful scenario is CE multihoming with ICCP deployed, the stan= dby PE would know the primary PE failure faster than other PE, and it would be better for original standby PE to send MAC withdraw with failed PE address, instead of MAC withdraw with empty list.

FB> Whether it is fas= ter or not depends really on which failure scenarios are considered the most commo= n. If the active link fails the PE that owns the failed link will know right away= so the current procedure in the draft is faster. This was one of the use cases= I heard more often justifying the need for negative MAC Flush. Even in the PE failure case the next hop tracking in IGP can be quite fast, not to speak a= bout OAM CCMs.
>
>
> Hope to see your comments.
>
> Thanks
> Lizhong
>
>
>  
>   

 
------------------------------------------=
--------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: information contained in&nb=
sp;this mail is&nb=
sp;solely property of&nb=
sp;the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above=
 are obligated to&nb=
sp;maintain secrecy and&n=
bsp;are not permitted to disclose the&n=
bsp;contents of this communication to others.
This email and&n=
bsp;any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended for the&n=
bsp;use of the individual or entity to whom they are&n=
bsp;addressed. If you have received email in&nb=
sp;error please notify the originator of the message. Any&n=
bsp;views expressed in&nb=
sp;this message are&n=
bsp;those of the individual sender.
This message has&n= bsp;been scanned for&n= bsp;viruses and Spam&= nbsp;by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--_000_2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BED62799USNAVSXCHMBSC_-- From chen.ran@zte.com.cn Mon Feb 13 21:55:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F4621F8663 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:55:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -95.881 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.302, BAYES_40=-0.185, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZNT75U1SrjgO for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:55:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83AD721F8661 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:55:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 52373577109098; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:49:37 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 89159.577109098; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:54:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q1E5skB3040197 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:54:46 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn) To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: =?GB2312?B?SS1Eo7pBdXRvbWF0aWMgVkxBTiBhbGxvY2F0aW9uIGluIEUtdHJlZQ==?= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Ran Chen Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:54:42 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-02-14 13:54:47, Serialize complete at 2012-02-14 13:54:47 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0020798F482579A4_=" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn q1E5skB3040197 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:55:04 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0020798F482579A4_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi all, I have just submitted a new draft"Automatic VLAN allocation in E-tree",below is the link: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-l2vpn-vpls-etree-vlan-00. This document proposes to use automatically allocated VLAN ID to indicate E-tree attribute. The VLAN ID can be derived from PW type/AGI automatically via some algorithm(e.g. "mod" operation). Grateful if you could review, and any comments or contributions are welcome. Regards Ran --=_alternative 0020798F482579A4_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi all,
I have just submitted a new draft"Automatic VLAN allocation in E-tree",below is the link:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-l2vpn-vpls-etree-vlan-00.

This document proposes to use automatically allocated VLAN ID to indicate E-tree attribute.
The VLAN ID can be derived from PW type/AGI automatically via some algorithm(e.g. "mod" operation).

Grateful if you could review, and any comments or contributions are welcome.

Regards
Ran --=_alternative 0020798F482579A4_=-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Feb 23 09:23:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D588A21F87DE; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:23:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.584 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hf-saWJaF0XY; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:23:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1C521F8737; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:23:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p2 Message-ID: <20120223172329.17289.78775.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:23:29 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:23:30 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : A Framework for E-Tree Service over MPLS Network Author(s) : Raymond Key Simon Delord Frederic Jounay Lucy Yong Lizhong Jin Yuji Kamite Wim Henderickx Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-00.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2012-01-30 This document proposes a solution framework for supporting Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) services over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network. The objective is to provide a simple and effective approach to emulate E-Tree services in addition to Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) services on an existing MPLS network. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk-00.txt From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Feb 24 05:45:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DABD721F86CA for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:45:01 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id exYtWUZ8s6RW for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:45:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B67321F8604 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:44:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by werg1 with SMTP id g1so1905238wer.31 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:44:57 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of giles.heron@gmail.com designates 10.216.137.230 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.216.137.230; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of giles.heron@gmail.com designates 10.216.137.230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=giles.heron@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=giles.heron@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.216.137.230]) by 10.216.137.230 with SMTP id y80mr1258295wei.21.1330091097522 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:44:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=Qy+si+BfaPul8/xMOPLqv6zN94wCVjvzE2XaUBFHa6E=; b=LZ1WWrKLykISVgeKPIPLKIzSdH+tgYY7Qus9ElqoKR5067xogUt2ar3Xt1zhMty5mz BG4HhwcK93qkEbpxxn1Jf6HvpTbPVXMksxu+tnsAXtvd+cf062x3f/Xo+7UOKxDfo5JR DtI/T+eowxJx7B8eYI0Sd3hTsxeworqS1jgBg= Received: by 10.216.137.230 with SMTP id y80mr1015181wei.21.1330091097470; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:44:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.55.83.43] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gp8sm3602064wib.5.2012.02.24.05.44.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:44:56 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:44:49 +0000 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2Xw++PmW4BN+GdN0EH5SJkg== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:45:02 -0000 There seems to be good consensus to adopt this as a WG draft. Authors - would you please go ahead and publish as draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-00? Giles On 03/02/2012 14:00, "Giles Heron" wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-03 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Please review the draft and respond by Friday February 17th with comments as > to its suitability for WG adoption. > > Giles > > From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Mon Feb 27 03:45:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6AC21F86C1 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 03:45:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.321, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bq0iMiEinhoD for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 03:45:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from fldsmtpe01.verizon.com (fldsmtpe01.verizon.com [140.108.26.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD6F21F867C for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 03:45:06 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2012 11:45:05 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,490,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217";a="230039876" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb01.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.45.78]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2012 11:45:05 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.3.51]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.78]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:43:37 -0500 To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:48:35 -0500 Subject: [l2vpn] L2VPN Agenda Slot Call for IETF 83 - Paris Thread-Topic: [l2vpn] L2VPN Agenda Slot Call for IETF 83 - Paris Thread-Index: Acz1RQrnlb6EdGr7Q+2K8evOxlfyhw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CB70C80018B88nabilnbitarverizoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Giles Heron X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:45:08 -0000 --_000_CB70C80018B88nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi L2VPN WG. Please let us know if you have a time-slot request for the L2VPN session at= IETF 83 =96 Paris. Please, email us your request by Sunday March 11 2012 = along with the following information: 1) Draft title 2) Presenter name 3) Requested duration Please note that priority will be given to drafts that are clearly within t= he scope of the current L2VPN charter. Additional key dates to remember are: 2012-03-05 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) subm= ission by 17:00 PT 2012-03-12 (Monday): Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT Please, note that the l2vpn WG session is currently scheduled on Thursday M= arch 29 13:00-15:00 Afternoon Session I Thanks, Nabil and Giles --_000_CB70C80018B88nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi L2VPN WG.
Please let us know if you have a time-slot request for the L2VPN session at= IETF 83 =96 Paris. Please,  email us your request by Sunday March 11 = 2012 along with the following information:
1) Draft title
2) Presenter name
3) Requested duration

Please note that priority will be given to drafts that are clearly within t= he scope of the current L2VPN charter.

Additional key dates to remember are:
2012-03-05 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) subm= ission by 17:00 PT 
2012-03-12 (Monday): Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT&nb= sp;

Please, note that t= he l2vpn WG session is currently scheduled on Thursday March 29 13:00-15:00= Afternoon Session I

Thanks,
Nabil and Giles
 --_000_CB70C80018B88nabilnbitarverizoncom_-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Feb 27 11:24:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD5E21F8645; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:24:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7GYpbnwWCgrK; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:24:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0DD221F855E; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:24:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120227192446.15081.34562.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:24:46 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:24:47 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN Author(s) : Rahul Aggarwal Ali Sajassi Wim Henderickx Nabil Bitar Ravi Shekhar John Drake Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-00.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2012-02-26 This document describes procedures for BGP MPLS based Ethernet VPNs (E-VPN). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-00.txt From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Feb 27 15:13:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B1921E8047; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:13:53 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vRjUqQL73Gu1; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:13:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA9421F857A; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:13:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120227231352.15760.56815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:13:52 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:13:53 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : PBB E-VPN Author(s) : Ali Sajassi Samer Salam Sami Boutros Nabil Bitar Lizhong Jin Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-00.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-02-27 This document discusses how Ethernet Provider Backbone Bridging [802.1ah] can be combined with E-VPN in order to reduce the number of BGP MAC advertisement routes by aggregating Customer/Client MAC (C-MAC) addresses via Provider Backbone MAC address (B-MAC), provide client MAC address mobility using C-MAC aggregation and B-MAC sub- netting, confine the scope of C-MAC learning to only active flows, offer per site policies and avoid C-MAC address flushing on topology changes. The combined solution is referred to as PBB-EVPN. Conventions A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-00.txt From N.Leymann@telekom.de Tue Feb 28 00:56:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0786821F866D for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:56:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lt8MoTq0oLFg for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:56:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail53.telekom.de (tcmail53.telekom.de [217.5.214.110]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD5421F865D for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 00:56:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from he113414.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.65.80]) by tcmail51.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 28 Feb 2012 09:56:00 +0100 Received: from HE111543.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.4.103]) by HE113414.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([2002:7cd:4150::7cd:4150]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:55:42 +0100 From: To: Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:55:41 +0100 Subject: The MPLS 2012 International Conference Call For Papers Thread-Topic: The MPLS 2012 International Conference Call For Papers Thread-Index: Acz19r/njBenriQxTZKhUr1n2o4z7w== Message-ID: <9762ACF04FA26B4388476841256BDE020115C91A5481@HE111543.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9762ACF04FA26B4388476841256BDE020115C91A5481HE111543eme_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:56:17 -0000 --_000_9762ACF04FA26B4388476841256BDE020115C91A5481HE111543eme_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear WG Members, The MPLS 2012 International Conference, the 15th Annual International Conference on MPLS and Related Technologies, will be held October 28 - 31, 2012, in Washington, DC. The Technical Program Committee is soliciting abstracts summarizing a proposed presentation representing original/unpublished work covering cutting-edge topics. Presentations covering new technologies and operational experience are solicited from network equipment vendors, service/transport providers, government agencies, the research community, and enterprise users. The deadline for submission of presentation proposals is April 30, 2012. If you want further information on MPLS 2012 or want to submit a presentation abstract, please see the following URL: http://www.isocore.com/mpls2012/call_for_papers/cfp.htm Many of these topics have been of interest to members of this working group in the past, and many people active on this list have been presenters at past events. On behalf of the Technical Planning Committee Nic --_000_9762ACF04FA26B4388476841256BDE020115C91A5481HE111543eme_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear WG Members,
 
The MPLS 2012 International Conference, the 15th Annual International =
Conference on MPLS and Related Technologies, will be held October 28 -=
31, 2012, in Washington, DC. The Technical Program Committee is
soliciting abstracts summarizing a proposed presentation representing =
original/unpublished work covering cutting-edge topics.
Presentations covering new technologies and operational experience are=
solicited from network equipment vendors, service/transport providers,=
government agencies, the research community, and enterprise users.
The deadline for submission of presentation proposals is April 30, 201= 2.
If you want further information on MPLS 2012 or want to submit a
presentation abstract, please see the following URL:
Many of these topics have been of interest to members of this working = group
in the past, and many people active on this list have been
presenters at past events.
 
On behalf of the Technical Planning Committee
 
  Nic
 
 
 --_000_9762ACF04FA26B4388476841256BDE020115C91A5481HE111543eme_-- From agmalis@gmail.com Tue Feb 28 05:16:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F056221F8643 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:16:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gJZyGx5u9YKS for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5730221F8642 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so2792434ghb.31 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of agmalis@gmail.com designates 10.50.42.132 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.50.42.132; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of agmalis@gmail.com designates 10.50.42.132 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=agmalis@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=agmalis@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.50.42.132]) by 10.50.42.132 with SMTP id o4mr2393778igl.58.1330434998196 (num_hops = 1); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:16:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=StyWYgW8guYUa+7iD/jQjGKMBbtSgihAR5nCn0OGM0s=; b=ccApw1ONWPBrYiHz8vqpy/ZcJjLOEfn61TxPdw6O28CpER70DJ+GJQWFUIxt8Ev81h KyTJls9pjDShm1YvU4cBN6nm9TMqZzPmFhkgNK25PaNPoit5kkLjjUlfWkZq3c/JxYJu bPAYWOZHGH+9s+kLXNWTn42NnAhEtNQEIo5jI= Received: by 10.50.42.132 with SMTP id o4mr2024581igl.58.1330434998158; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:16:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: agmalis@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.197.167 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:16:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:16:18 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Vf-Qr1D1_ZeT3ysDfxTEXMsJrWQ Message-ID: Subject: Fwd: Ending WG adoption call for draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:16:40 -0000 I'm forwarding this for the information of the L2VPN WG. Cheers, Andy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew G. Malis Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:58 AM Subject: [PWE3] Ending WG adoption call for draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-= wd-02 To: pwe3@ietf.org Cc: draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd@tools.ietf.org Well, this has taken a bit longer than two weeks, and for that we apologize, but based on the comments received on the PWE3 list, the PWE3 co-chairs, L2VPN co-chairs, and the routing ADs discussed the draft and we all agree that this draft is better suited for L2VPN than PWE3. This ends the PWE3 call for adoption, the authors should consider updating the draft based on received comments (including updating the draft name to include l2vpn rather than pwe3), and then work through the usual process in the L2VPN WG. This does not begin any actions in the L2VPN WG, any such actions will need to be requested on that group's list. Thanks, Andy On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > This begins a two-week PWE3 WG adoption call for https://tools.ietf.org/h= tml/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02 , ending February 6. Please respon= d with your approval, disapproval, and other comments to the PWE3 list. If = you don't support the adoption, providing a reason would be useful to the a= uthors and the working group, but is not required. Of course, the reason wh= y you support the draft is also welcome, but also optional. This request wi= ll be a part of PWE3 WG adoption calls going forward. > > Thanks, > Andy and Matthew > _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From sboutros@cisco.com Tue Feb 28 10:49:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB3F21F85BB for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:49:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zzywgzd8CQQh for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:49:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B9621F8539 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:49:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sboutros@cisco.com; l=2054; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330454997; x=1331664597; h=date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to:references: mime-version:message-id; bh=h3AsYxFFncxvsCJ91ZT7uzsplWPlx/XYEQpUbZxmdUc=; b=BmFS5QzlOSj8o9RMgTTF7pZH7r49R/ox5jbPI+ZO+gItUuhX9G85XEkw KiY6IZlB8qiR2PC0zBB9gq48fiHHDohFsO4/C+yQLhjVaaDgJSWrKMCsa N9St7zl3AZ+043zOFhlomMwuYwUpBnYIsd3nrAm/XolY+XLSKZu6iV0Lz w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAAAhTU+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDiEqrGoEHgXcBAQEEAQEBDwEKGwI0CxAHBBEDAQIBHhAZCAYoCAYBEiKHZQELoREBlyYEiRmDfxIMAwMCCgINCQMRBgEKCQKEQQVHAzMBDgoGBRWDLASIT5gJh3g X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,497,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="30917752" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2012 18:49:57 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1SInvZg010129; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:49:57 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.114]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:49:56 -0800 Received: from sboutros-wxp01.ciswco.com ([10.154.208.179]) by xfe-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:49:56 -0800 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:49:55 -0800 To: "Andrew G. Malis" , l2vpn@ietf.org From: Sami Boutros Subject: Re: Fwd: Ending WG adoption call for draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2012 18:49:56.0524 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3D196C0:01CCF649] Cc: "Siva Sivabalan \(msiva\)" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:49:58 -0000 Thanks Andy, We will change the name of the draft to be a l2vpn draft, and update it with the comments received and submit it shotly. Thanks, Sami At 05:16 AM 2/28/2012, Andrew G. Malis wrote: >I'm forwarding this for the information of the L2VPN WG. > >Cheers, >Andy > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Andrew G. Malis >Date: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:58 AM >Subject: [PWE3] Ending WG adoption call for >draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02 >To: pwe3@ietf.org >Cc: draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd@tools.ietf.org > >Well, this has taken a bit longer than two weeks, and for that we >apologize, but based on the comments received on the PWE3 list, the >PWE3 co-chairs, L2VPN co-chairs, and the routing ADs discussed the >draft and we all agree that this draft is better suited for L2VPN than >PWE3. > >This ends the PWE3 call for adoption, the authors should consider >updating the draft based on received comments (including updating the >draft name to include l2vpn rather than pwe3), and then work through >the usual process in the L2VPN WG. This does not begin any actions in >the L2VPN WG, any such actions will need to be requested on that >group's list. > >Thanks, >Andy > >On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > > > This begins a two-week PWE3 WG adoption call for > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-02 , > ending February 6. Please respond with your approval, disapproval, > and other comments to the PWE3 list. If you don't support the > adoption, providing a reason would be useful to the authors and the > working group, but is not required. Of course, the reason why you > support the draft is also welcome, but also optional. This request > will be a part of PWE3 WG adoption calls going forward. > > > > Thanks, > > Andy and Matthew > > > > >_______________________________________________ >pwe3 mailing list >pwe3@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3