From yakov@juniper.net Wed Jan 2 08:43:00 2013 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 7AAD321F8696 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:43:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9kwBVjFNzjDt for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:42:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039C221F8694 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:42:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUORjjtj4J4MMbTN+LtU5SA6s9amVA5k/@postini.com; Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:42:59 PST Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:40:54 -0800 Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id r02Ger392117; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:40:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-ID: <201301021640.r02Ger392117@magenta.juniper.net> To: "Bitar, Nabil N" Subject: Re: Polling for IPR on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 In-Reply-To: References: X-MH-In-Reply-To: "Bitar, Nabil N" message dated "Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:50:25 -0500." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <821.1357144853.1@juniper.net> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:40:53 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , 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: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:43:00 -0000 Nabil, > Hi, > > We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-vp= > ls-mcast-12.txt, multicast in VPLS, in order to ensure that IPR has been di= > sclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 53= > 78 for more details). > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to t= > his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not bee= > n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has be= > en received from each author and contributor. > > If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= > ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR = > that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft c= > an be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 > > This poll closes on Monday December 3, 2012. I am not aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed. Yakov. From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Wed Jan 2 08:49:00 2013 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 4044A21F854B for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:49:00 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yeRKZQ+KCdlj for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:48:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from fldsmtpe02.verizon.com (fldsmtpe02.verizon.com [140.108.26.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EF921F850D for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:48:58 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi02.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.144]) by fldsmtpe02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 02 Jan 2013 16:48:53 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" To: Yakov Rekhter , "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,396,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="389004853" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb03.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.86]) by fldsmtpi02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 02 Jan 2013 16:48:53 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.45]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.86]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:48:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:48:36 -0500 Subject: Re: Polling for IPR on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 Thread-Topic: Polling for IPR on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 Thread-Index: Ac3pCQwB/r/qxfykQOW5UsHYFyAU8g== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201301021640.r02Ger392117@magenta.juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , 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: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:49:00 -0000 Thanks Yakov. - Nabil On 1/2/13 11:40 AM, "Yakov Rekhter" wrote: >Nabil, > >> Hi, >>=20 >> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to >>draft-ietf-l2vpn-vp=3D >> ls-mcast-12.txt, multicast in VPLS, in order to ensure that IPR has >>been di=3D >> sclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 >>and 53=3D >> 78 for more details). >>=20 >> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond >>to t=3D >> his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not >>bee=3D >> n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response >>has be=3D >> en received from each author and contributor. >>=20 >> If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author >>or co=3D >> ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any >>IPR =3D >> that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The >>draft c=3D >> an be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 >>=20 >> This poll closes on Monday December 3, 2012. > >I am not aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed. > >Yakov. From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Wed Jan 2 09:45:27 2013 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 DFC8921F866D for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:45:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LBJMHXeH-2KM for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:45:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from fldsmtpe03.verizon.com (fldsmtpe03.verizon.com [140.108.26.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0723821F8455 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:45:19 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi02.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.144]) by fldsmtpe03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 02 Jan 2013 17:45:19 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" To: Rahul Aggarwal , "Bitar, Nabil N" , Yakov Rekhter X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,397,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="389046550" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb05.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.87]) by fldsmtpi02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 02 Jan 2013 17:45:19 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.45]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.87]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 12:45:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 12:45:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Polling for IPR on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 Thread-Topic: Polling for IPR on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 Thread-Index: Ac3pEO5ay0jMoEieRZWB/t6WuapiHg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1357148561.90708.YahooMailNeo@web120005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD09DC136E0E7nabilnbitarverizoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , 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: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:45:28 -0000 --_000_CD09DC136E0E7nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Rahul for the reply. At this time, we had received all the responses= from the authors. Thanks, Nabil From: Rahul Aggarwal > Reply-To: Rahul Aggarwal = > Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:42 PM To: "Bitar, Nabil N" >, Yakov Rekhter = > Cc: Giles Heron >, "Luyuan Fang= (lufang)" >, "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: Polling for IPR on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-v= pls-mcast-12 Hi Nabil, > Hi, > > We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-= vp=3D > ls-mcast-12.txt, multicast in VPLS, in order to ensure that IPR has been = di=3D > sclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and = 53=3D > 78 for more details). > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to= t=3D > his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not b= ee=3D > n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has = be=3D > en received from each author and contributor. > > If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or = co=3D > ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IP= R =3D > that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft= c=3D > an be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 > > This poll closes on Monday December 3, 2012. I am not aware of any IPR that has not been properly disclosed. rahul --_000_CD09DC136E0E7nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Rahul for the rep= ly. At this time, we had received all the responses from the authors.
=

Thanks,
 Nabil

= From: Rahul Aggarwal <raggarwa_1@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Rahul Aggarwal <raggarwa_1@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:42 PM
To: "Bitar, Nabil N" <nabil.n.bitar@one.verizon.com>, Yak= ov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net&g= t;
Cc: Giles Heron <giheron@cisco.com>, "Luyuan Fang (lufa= ng)" <lufang@cisco.com>, "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Su= bject: Re: Polling for IPR on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l= 2vpn-vpls-mcast-12

Hi Nabil,

> Hi,
>=20
> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2v=
pn-vp=3D
> ls-mcast-12.txt, multicast in VPLS, in order to ensure that IPR has be=
en di=3D
> sclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 a=
nd 53=3D
> 78 for more details).
>=20
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor,  please respond=
 to t=3D
> his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has no=
t bee=3D
> n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response h=
as be=3D
> en received from each author and contributor.
>=20
> If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author =
or co=3D
> ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any=
 IPR =3D
> that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The dr=
aft c=3D
> an be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn=
-vpls-mcast-12
>=20
> This poll closes on Monday December 3, 2012.
I am not aware of any IPR that has not been properly disclosed.

rahul

--_000_CD09DC136E0E7nabilnbitarverizoncom_-- From raggarwa_1@yahoo.com Wed Jan 2 09:42:45 2013 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 3D91C21F86F6 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:42:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AF4lQZhYw0lc for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm3-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm3-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FAC21F86EF for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [98.138.90.53] by nm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Jan 2013 17:42:41 -0000 Received: from [98.138.86.157] by tm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Jan 2013 17:42:41 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1015.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Jan 2013 17:42:41 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 753073.38373.bm@omp1015.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 16823 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Jan 2013 17:42:41 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1357148561; bh=vlBlLOI2C2wQzCqb6Uov+WOwL4+ESy6oeznFWyN3nhU=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Ri9PntTLu6ymVKzKtRl1APceSHcvWVTbVDQYhMEAIJ5BmwTm8Mqd6Tw0K4zmn7Uzr7mCgMrMKwtvT55++9/qu8wGzf6ETOmAap5T8wt9XlCN1ba50DKFFVylUZ9jUUxoKEAUFUdi7ySZkL/ZduLQRnIW2TQ9cmW4vI2nPC3gACk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=a0OJORpsrh1bdJqLGdIPEnuSFYIFrTRlxCfp4J3S1Lxxig5qOEXPgXBjZQdnZUMA2yKvFVOtktuT4eT1Lfw9q6IA7HAiApPdmlSnbn1tuMLxGtruVIS0/exzAaeMyx8VgxkE7wwEeOxZ+0/Md0DHZ4GNDEu9rAvuSZGOMfzMQ6U=; X-YMail-OSG: Bm0cvKUVM1lDGLSaUX5ddslKBwdqk0tlHnhOhLVjQ5V8BrE ZSw.xDMsf2o4AB8_lgMa7xdS2HWJwlmlvoaadowSH8gcq3nr4rgVmf9hxaO4 1cRbnHVyCPJ7FnldCsXHlZL6jEFQlG1rEhvse5TQXyZ0DUvZhFR8t3z9X1G4 Pcod34_f1x_LpYDNozzLYVRE3Jk4ow.AZgtyDwyLdDJjp_cWkd5kSzfSg2bG nEvsWarmnZlxXUNvr0RCMOnBnLFd8KxXV50YDhLMSL4.jAopKcQxP1uhSVRi t_pPq5dEcRWKxafXIrZx1o4Jwa_DLdg_aAEmwgQAGk1SriVgJWk1yoqfceNX LawdI6wmB35wpRpMQwQ3S8ddrvvnkp5Rl373X_KkhCXBHA0QDyR8fQVwkUfp zgVfZPrv4TJV393ku756WZsHQIwRqeltw.ub4O4dDqS7OREUT7ThHREMdzBA wJZwfnEiKvcnrnXNcyhY1TRudpTpv_cS6O7TW0kKrYT9bZyA9I8TEBkMcX05 PCzR6KiFxqZTXKwSgDovwC2kr9xEIPC05zhF0AL9mFE0ll_nrFLxGCKd7W9v 69fHyrq98rxRmSJJwf70Ysyoz9ZOec7GM0aXgM.4UKDvpoQ80ZT4YwiJGjjK Jy.xzYUw- Received: from [24.130.224.162] by web120005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 02 Jan 2013 09:42:41 PST X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 001.001, SGkgTmFiaWwsCgoKPiBIaSwKPiAKPiBXZSBhcmUgcG9sbGluZyBmb3Iga25vd2xlZGdlIG9mIGFueSBJUFIgdGhhdCBhcHBsaWVzIHRvIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbDJ2cG4tdnA9Cj4gbHMtbWNhc3QtMTIudHh0LCBtdWx0aWNhc3QgaW4gVlBMUywgaW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gZW5zdXJlIHRoYXQgSVBSIGhhcyBiZWVuIGRpPQo.IHNjbG9zZWQgaW4gY29tcGxpYW5jZSB3aXRoIElFVEYgSVBSIHJ1bGVzIChzZWUgUkZDcyAzOTc5LCA0ODc5LCAzNjY5IGFuZCA1Mz0KPiA3OCBmb3IgbW9yZSBkZXRhaWxzKS4KPiAKPiBJZiABMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.129.483 References: <201301021641.r02Gfg392713@magenta.juniper.net> Message-ID: <1357148561.90708.YahooMailNeo@web120005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 09:42:41 -0800 (PST) From: Rahul Aggarwal Subject: Re: Polling for IPR on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 To: "Bitar, Nabil N" , Yakov Rekhter In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="737196383-932048479-1357148561=:90708" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:29:52 -0800 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , Giles Heron X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Rahul Aggarwal List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:43:23 -0000 --737196383-932048479-1357148561=:90708 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Nabil, > Hi, > > We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-vp= > ls-mcast-12.txt, multicast in VPLS, in order to ensure that IPR has been di= > sclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 53= > 78 for more details). > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to t= > his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not bee= > n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has be= > en received from each author and contributor. > > If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= > ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR = > that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft c= > an be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 > > This poll closes on Monday December 3, 2012.I am not aware of any IPR that has not been properly disclosed. rahul --737196383-932048479-1357148561=:90708 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Hi Nabil,

> Hi,
> 
> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-vp=
> ls-mcast-12.txt, multicast in VPLS, in order to ensure that IPR has been di=
> sclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 53=
> 78 for more details).
> 
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor,  please respond to t=
> his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not bee=
> n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has be=
> en received from each author and contributor.
> 
> If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co=
> ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR =
> that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft c=
> an be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12
> 
> This poll closes on Monday December 3, 2012.
I am not aware of any IPR that has not been properly disclosed.

rahul

--737196383-932048479-1357148561=:90708-- From prvs=8714ad572f=hshah@ciena.com Wed Jan 2 13:55:33 2013 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 A343721F8442 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:55:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EoQMp-FBuaWv for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:55:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.144.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0790621F83EF for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:55:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0000419 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id r02LtTxa030897; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:55:31 -0500 Received: from mdwexght02.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-29.ciena.com [63.118.36.29]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 19mvta82fs-3 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:55:31 -0500 Received: from MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.106) by MDWEXGHT02.ciena.com (10.4.140.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.5; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:55:29 -0500 Received: from MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com ([::1]) by MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:55:28 -0500 From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: "Rogers, Josh" , Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:55:27 -0500 Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Index: Ac3eBEIgsTnRo/U5QUCjHMnqbFHNcALLyKtg 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-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-19500.002 x-tm-as-result: No--38.126900-8.000000-31 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=2.50.10432:5.9.8327, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2013-01-02_08:2012-12-31, 2013-01-02, 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=6.0.2-1211240000 definitions=main-1301020242 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, 02 Jan 2013 21:55:33 -0000 IPLS predates EVPN and used many important concepts introduced in this docu= ment. EVPN uses BGP signaling while IPLS uses LDP and provides an alternative to = those vendors/networks that does not want to use BGP for capex/opex (or any other) reasons. Thanks for your support. /himanshu -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of R= ogers, Josh Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:17 AM To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls I support publication. This methodology is attractive due to the isolation= of the AC, potential isolation and/or mitigation loop on the AC, improved = SP visibility into customer traffic benefiting coop troubleshooting and sup= port for multicast customer traffic (to not be treated as broadcast). I do, however, see some overlap with EVPN, and would like to hear how the a= uthors see the relationship between some of the EVPN work and this? -Josh On 12/19/12 9:59 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11 > >please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for=20 >publication as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG. As always it'd=20 >be good to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!". =20 >Well, given the season any comments at all would be good ;) > >this last call will close on Friday 4th January. > >Nabil & Giles 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. From josh.rogers@twcable.com Wed Jan 2 13:58:26 2013 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 597A121F87E1 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:58:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.078 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.385, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E6AkrM-fGAbB for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:58:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9ACB21F8786 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:58:25 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.13 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,398,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="5980789" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB04.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.13]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 02 Jan 2013 16:57:33 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS08.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.37]) by PRVPEXHUB04.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.13]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:58:25 -0500 From: "Rogers, Josh" To: "Shah, Himanshu" , Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:58:23 -0500 Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Index: Ac3pNElo1pSRkZKqQEyANanajz7uyA== 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/14.2.5.121010 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:58:26 -0000 Thank you for the clarification. In an SP role, I would prefer EVPN and using BGP signaling with a more robust solution, but can also appreciate the benefit of a non-BGP option to accomplish some of the same goals. -Josh On 1/2/13 3:55 PM, "Shah, Himanshu" wrote: >IPLS predates EVPN and used many important concepts introduced in this >document. >EVPN uses BGP signaling while IPLS uses LDP and provides an alternative >to those vendors/networks >that does not want to use BGP for capex/opex (or any other) reasons. > >Thanks for your support. >/himanshu > >-----Original Message----- >From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Rogers, Josh >Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:17 AM >To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org >Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls > >I support publication. This methodology is attractive due to the >isolation of the AC, potential isolation and/or mitigation loop on the >AC, improved SP visibility into customer traffic benefiting coop >troubleshooting and support for multicast customer traffic (to not be >treated as broadcast). > >I do, however, see some overlap with EVPN, and would like to hear how the >authors see the relationship between some of the EVPN work and this? > >-Josh > > >On 12/19/12 9:59 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: > >>This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: >> >>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11 >> >>please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for >>publication as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG. As always it'd >>be good to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!". >>Well, given the season any comments at all would be good ;) >> >>this last call will close on Friday 4th January. >> >>Nabil & Giles > > >This E-mail and any of its attachments 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 >are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified >that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in >relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly >prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in >error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the >original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. 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. From prvs=8714ad572f=hshah@ciena.com Wed Jan 2 14:05:39 2013 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 BDA4821F85EA for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:05:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mPNq1IIgHvA8 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.152.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0485B21F85E8 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:05:37 -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 r02M5ZGa003458; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:05:36 -0500 Received: from mdwexght02.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-29.ciena.com [63.118.36.29]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 19mwb38086-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:05:36 -0500 Received: from MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.106) by MDWEXGHT02.ciena.com (10.4.140.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.5; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:05:36 -0500 Received: from MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com ([::1]) by MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:05:14 -0500 From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" , Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:05:14 -0500 Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Index: Ac3eIvB7dC6f03YITKeZkbATjyHbjALEPTAA 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-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-19500.002 x-tm-as-result: No--33.624300-8.000000-31 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=2.50.10432:5.9.8327, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2013-01-02_09:2012-12-31, 2013-01-02, 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=6.0.2-1211240000 definitions=main-1301020246 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, 02 Jan 2013 22:05:39 -0000 IPLS introduced to L2VPN WG some of the main concepts that EVPN is using - - CE MAC address learning - so that FIB does not have to be created by sno= oping passing user data frames - CE MAC address signaling=20 - use of mp2p label Also, the IPLS provides an alternate to BGP based signaling. Perhaps you may know that L2VPN group has both LDP and BGP based solutions = for VPWS and VPLS? (which included no WG last call for RFC 6624 that I recall - may be you can= prove me wrong). /himanshu -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of H= enderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:56 PM To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls I would not support this given E_VPN is a superior solution. On 19/12/12 16:59, "Giles Heron" wrote: >This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11 > >please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for=20 >publication as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG. As always it'd=20 >be good to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!". =20 >Well, given the season any comments at all would be good ;) > >this last call will close on Friday 4th January. > >Nabil & Giles From prvs=8714ad572f=hshah@ciena.com Wed Jan 2 15:33:22 2013 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 8321A21F8836 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:33:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NEdfgH92HmqK for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:33:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.152.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B33521F86DD for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 15:33:20 -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 r02NUYvg029477; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:33:16 -0500 Received: from mdwexght02.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-29.ciena.com [63.118.36.29]) by mx0b-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 19mwb385nd-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:33:16 -0500 Received: from MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.106) by MDWEXGHT02.ciena.com (10.4.140.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.5; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:33:17 -0500 Received: from MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com ([::1]) by MDWEXCHCGSIHT01.ciena.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:33:16 -0500 From: "Shah, Himanshu" To: Gregory Mirsky , Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 18:33:15 -0500 Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Index: AQHN3gHXckNJrIR3ZEmelW3WlnfXRpggu++ggBXtI2A= Message-ID: References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11202AE69@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11202AE69@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> 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-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-19500.002 x-tm-as-result: No--46.929200-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE3801AC8CB1EEMDWEXGMB02cie_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8327, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2013-01-02_10:2012-12-31, 2013-01-02, 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=6.0.2-1211240000 definitions=main-1301020272 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, 02 Jan 2013 23:33:22 -0000 --_000_B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE3801AC8CB1EEMDWEXGMB02cie_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am not sure that even WG consensus is required for the "informational" RF= C. The IPLS document has been last called when on standard's track (AFAIK) but= IPv6 support was requested when circulated to other groups. This has been added. AFAIK, there are a couple of vendors contemplating implementation. /himanshu From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= regory Mirsky Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:12 PM To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Dear All, would publication of the document fall into the following case (http://www.= ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html): * ... work that could be practiced, was developed in the IETF, has = been dropped for some reason, but is being published for the record. That's= Informational, unless the IESG determines that Historic status is more app= ropriate. Support if that is the case and Historic status will be suggested to IESG o= r, even better, selected by the WG itself. Otherwise - do not support publication. Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-b= ounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:59 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11 please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publicat= ion as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG. As always it'd be good to h= ear some comments over and above the usual "Support!". Well, given the sea= son any comments at all would be good ;) this last call will close on Friday 4th January. Nabil & Giles --_000_B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE3801AC8CB1EEMDWEXGMB02cie_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am= not sure that even WG consensus is required for the “informational&#= 8221; RFC.

The IPLS= document has been last called when on standard’s track (AFAIK) but I= Pv6 support was requested

= when circulated to other groups. This has been added.

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>AFAIK, there are a couple of vendors contempl= ating implementation.

/himanshu

 

From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [m= ailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent= : Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:12 PM
To: Giles Heron; l2vpn= @ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls=

 

Dear All,

would pu= blication of the document fall into the following case (http://www.ietf.org/ie= sg/informational-vs-experimental.html):

· = ;        = ... work = that could be practiced, was developed in the IETF, has been dropped for so= me reason, but is being published for the record. That's Informational, unl= ess the IESG determines that Historic status is more appropriate.

Support if that is the case and Historic statu= s will be suggested to IESG or, even better, selected by the WG itself.

Otherwise - do not support publica= tion.

 <= /p>

        Regard= s,

    &nbs= p;           Greg

 

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

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:59 AM

To: l2vpn@ietf.org<= o:p>

Subject: WG Last Call on draft-= ietf-l2vpn-ipls

 

This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last C= all for:

 

 

please comment to the list as to the suitability of th= is draft for publication as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG.  A= s always it'd be good to hear some comments over and above the usual "= Support!".  Well, given the season any comments at all would be g= ood ;)

 =

this last call will close on Friday 4th January.=

 

Nabil & Giles

 

= --_000_B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE3801AC8CB1EEMDWEXGMB02cie_-- From jdrake@juniper.net Thu Jan 3 07:54:08 2013 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 CB93621F88BC for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:54:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.207 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cHE5aMFfrBoq for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:54:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476F521F8753 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:54:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUOWpmWMDB2CWCM6sTlZyRx7ZimZmJzff@postini.com; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 07:54:06 PST Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:51:14 -0800 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:51:13 -0800 Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.181.184) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:53:33 -0800 Received: from mail120-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.226) by CH1EHSOBE011.bigfish.com (10.43.70.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:51:12 +0000 Received: from mail120-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail120-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A759A3A00DF for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:51:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -25 X-BigFish: PS-25(zzbb2dI98dI9371I542I1432Izz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275bh8275dh1033IL17326ahz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h1155h) Received: from mail120-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail120-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1357228270183873_19076; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS040.bigfish.com (snatpool3.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.225]) by mail120-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D993E006E; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by CH1EHSMHS040.bigfish.com (10.43.69.249) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:51:09 +0000 Received: from BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.110]) by BL2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.100.37]) with mapi id 14.16.0245.002; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:51:08 +0000 From: John E Drake To: "Shah, Himanshu" , "EXT - josh.rogers@twcable.com" , Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Index: AQHN3gIiwDvBhiSCgkqGwxMX/p5T05ggTH4AgBZfPYCAASxvMA== Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:51:07 +0000 Message-ID: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E0B6DCD92@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%CIENA.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%GMAIL.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net 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, 03 Jan 2013 15:54:09 -0000 I support its publication as 'Informantional'. Irrespectively Yours, John > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Shah, Himanshu > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 1:55 PM > To: EXT - josh.rogers@twcable.com; Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls >=20 > IPLS predates EVPN and used many important concepts introduced in this > document. > EVPN uses BGP signaling while IPLS uses LDP and provides an alternative > to those vendors/networks that does not want to use BGP for capex/opex > (or any other) reasons. >=20 > Thanks for your support. > /himanshu >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Rogers, Josh > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:17 AM > To: Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls >=20 > I support publication. This methodology is attractive due to the > isolation of the AC, potential isolation and/or mitigation loop on the > AC, improved SP visibility into customer traffic benefiting coop > troubleshooting and support for multicast customer traffic (to not be > treated as broadcast). >=20 > I do, however, see some overlap with EVPN, and would like to hear how > the authors see the relationship between some of the EVPN work and > this? >=20 > -Josh >=20 >=20 > On 12/19/12 9:59 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >=20 > >This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11 > > > >please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for > >publication as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG. As always it'd > >be good to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!". > >Well, given the season any comments at all would be good ;) > > > >this last call will close on Friday 4th January. > > > >Nabil & Giles >=20 >=20 > This E-mail and any of its attachments 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 are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you > are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or > action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E- > mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received > this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and > permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any > printout. From sajassi@cisco.com Thu Jan 3 09:51:32 2013 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 5BE9721F8BED for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:51:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GQBZK9C7sKFK for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:51:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19AEA21F8BBB for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:51:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4195; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1357235486; x=1358445086; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=fRCa33FW0J749auBkkncZhRJBcNj9qwD7VB9Gs++axI=; b=dQx4ckZp2706k5+e5E+nccXLOo+NUxp1Kp+xN347Sgfs9yJNPf8L0/83 gthNMvFhyN+SuuD4o2ARJ2PYxdQ5LfnKAMRUjyYqzVfF3L5icfnf8v8VI 4CDQQTEFGUXJ5hlw2AnSA6I+MhEqUJDaACTxkHoryniAqDH2a30WGElS/ c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FACvE5VCtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABFgX9LI7FQAYkUFnOCHgEBAQQdXBIBCAQNAwECCx0oERQJCAIEAQ0FCId5Aw8BC681DYYsi21qC4NXYQOUNoJyihuFEYJ0gXE1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,404,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="158315716" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2013 17:51:20 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r03HpKSw018084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:51:20 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([173.37.183.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 11:51:20 -0600 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Andrew G. Malis" , Giles Heron Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Index: AQHN3gHMEQS389Oz+Uyhk4kwbTItnJgkCyWAgBPNLQA= Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:51:19 +0000 Message-ID: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B0D7E382C@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.166] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B0D7E382Cxmbalnx13ciscoc_" 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, 03 Jan 2013 17:51:33 -0000 --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B0D7E382Cxmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:28 AM To: Giles Heron > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Giles, I support publication, but I do wonder if Historic would be more appropriat= e at this point, unless there actually are implementations out there somewh= ere. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Giles Heron > wrote: This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11 please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publicat= ion as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG. As always it'd be good to h= ear some comments over and above the usual "Support!". Well, given the sea= son any comments at all would be good ;) this last call will close on Friday 4th January. Nabil & Giles --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B0D7E382Cxmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <80891A080F071D4281F1065FA38185F1@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1

From: "Andrew G. Malis" &= lt;agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:= 28 AM
To: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2v= pn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-= ietf-l2vpn-ipls

Giles,

I support publication, but I do wonder if Historic would be more appropriat= e at this point, unless there actually are implementations out there somewh= ere.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Giles Heron <giles.heron@= gmail.com> wrote:
This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11

please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publicat= ion as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG.  As always it'd be good= to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!".  = ;Well, given the season any comments at all would be good ;)

this last call will close on Friday 4th January.

Nabil & Giles

 --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B0D7E382Cxmbalnx13ciscoc_-- From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Thu Jan 3 10:22:37 2013 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 D1BC221F8BA1 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:22:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3tWsXK2EZjJ4 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:22:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A4F21F8B70 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:22:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r03IaCdX019113; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 12:36:13 -0600 Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 13:22:18 -0500 From: Jeff Tantsura To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "Andrew G. Malis" , Giles Heron Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Index: AQHN3gHTbTU5Pbr0ME6EuPwu1vUBspgj+mKAgBRTSoD//4KLgA== Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:22:17 +0000 Message-ID: <60DEDD93F5E54B4AB55647B8B6C748391133FA@eusaamb109.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B0D7E382C@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_60DEDD93F5E54B4AB55647B8B6C748391133FAeusaamb109ericsso_" 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, 03 Jan 2013 18:22:37 -0000 --_000_60DEDD93F5E54B4AB55647B8B6C748391133FAeusaamb109ericsso_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Same here, IMO at this point in time - Historic would be the right thing to= do. Cheers, Jeff From: Ali Sajassi > Date: Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:51 AM To: "Andrew G. Malis" >, Giles = Heron > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls +1 From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:28 AM To: Giles Heron > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Giles, I support publication, but I do wonder if Historic would be more appropriat= e at this point, unless there actually are implementations out there somewh= ere. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Giles Heron > wrote: This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11 please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publicat= ion as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG. As always it'd be good to h= ear some comments over and above the usual "Support!". Well, given the sea= son any comments at all would be good ;) this last call will close on Friday 4th January. Nabil & Giles --_000_60DEDD93F5E54B4AB55647B8B6C748391133FAeusaamb109ericsso_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Same here, IMO at this point in time - Historic would be the righ= t thing to do.

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:5= 1 AM
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <= ;agmalis@gmail.com>, Giles Hero= n <giles.heron@gmail.com>= ;
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2v= pn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-= ietf-l2vpn-ipls

+1

From: "Andrew G. Malis" &= lt;agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:= 28 AM
To: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2v= pn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-= ietf-l2vpn-ipls

Giles,

I support publication, but I do wonder if Historic would be more appropriat= e at this point, unless there actually are implementations out there somewh= ere.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Giles Heron <giles.heron@= gmail.com> wrote:
This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11

please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publicat= ion as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG.  As always it'd be good= to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!".  = ;Well, given the season any comments at all would be good ;)

this last call will close on Friday 4th January.

Nabil & Giles

 --_000_60DEDD93F5E54B4AB55647B8B6C748391133FAeusaamb109ericsso_-- From lucy.yong@huawei.com Thu Jan 3 14:16:41 2013 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 A196921F868F for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:16:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mab9z+t8HXUu for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:16:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C790021F84A1 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ANE35871; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:16:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:15:39 +0000 Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:16:34 +0000 Received: from DFWEML505-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.100]) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.132]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:16:28 -0800 From: Lucy yong To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "Andrew G. Malis" , Giles Heron Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Index: AQHN3gHMEQS389Oz+Uyhk4kwbTItnJgkCyWAgBPNLQCAAGtroA== Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 22:16:28 +0000 Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D44865EA6@dfweml505-mbx> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B0D7E382C@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B0D7E382C@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.81.233] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D44865EA6dfweml505mbx_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected 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, 03 Jan 2013 22:16:41 -0000 --_000_2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D44865EA6dfweml505mbx_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support in the same way too. Lucy From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= li Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:51 AM To: Andrew G. Malis; Giles Heron Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls +1 From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:28 AM To: Giles Heron > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Giles, I support publication, but I do wonder if Historic would be more appropriat= e at this point, unless there actually are implementations out there somewh= ere. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Giles Heron > wrote: This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11 please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publicat= ion as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG. As always it'd be good to h= ear some comments over and above the usual "Support!". Well, given the sea= son any comments at all would be good ;) this last call will close on Friday 4th January. Nabil & Giles --_000_2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D44865EA6dfweml505mbx_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support in the same way=  too.

 <= /p>

Lucy

 <= /p>

From: l2vpn-bo= unces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:51 AM
To: Andrew G. Malis; Giles Heron
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls=

 

+1

 

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:28 AM
To: Giles Heron <giles.h= eron@gmail.com>
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org"= <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls=

 

Giles,

I support publication, but I do wonder if Historic would be more appropriat= e at this point, unless there actually are implementations out there somewh= ere.

Cheers,

Andy

 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:= 59 AM, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com> wrote:

This email initiates an L2V= PN WG Last Call for:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11

please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publicat= ion as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG.  As always it'd be good= to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!".  = ;Well, given the season any comments at all would be good ;)

this last call will close on Friday 4th January.

Nabil & Giles

 

--_000_2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D44865EA6dfweml505mbx_-- From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Fri Jan 11 07:59:47 2013 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 1EF8B21F88C4 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 07:59:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.161 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.437, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vXVjQxzO0ArO for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 07:59:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from fldsmtpe03.verizon.com (fldsmtpe03.verizon.com [140.108.26.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4A021F88BD for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 07:59:45 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi03.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.145]) by fldsmtpe03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2013 15:59:45 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,452,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="394874709" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb02.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.85]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2013 15:59:44 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.45]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.85]) with mapi; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:59:43 -0500 To: Lucy yong , "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "Andrew G. Malis" , Giles Heron Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:59:42 -0500 Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Topic: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Thread-Index: Ac3wFKtG5IdjdOnRSqe3mluULyhkiA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D44865EA6@dfweml505-mbx> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD14F67E755E0nabilnbitarverizoncom_" 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: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:59:47 -0000 --_000_CD14F67E755E0nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, The IPLS draft passed the WG last call. It will be progressed as an informa= tional RFC by the WG chairs based on the interpretation of the rules govern= ing the publication of historical and information RFCs. If it is to be conv= erted to a historical RFC, it will be an IESG decision. Thanks, Giles & Nabil From: Lucy yong > Date: Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:16 PM To: Sagessi >, "Andrew G. Malis= " >, Giles Heron > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls I support in the same way too. Lucy From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-b= ounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:51 AM To: Andrew G. Malis; Giles Heron Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls +1 From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Date: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:28 AM To: Giles Heron > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls Giles, I support publication, but I do wonder if Historic would be more appropriat= e at this point, unless there actually are implementations out there somewh= ere. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Giles Heron > wrote: This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-11 please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publicat= ion as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG. As always it'd be good to h= ear some comments over and above the usual "Support!". Well, given the sea= son any comments at all would be good ;) this last call will close on Friday 4th January. Nabil & Giles --_000_CD14F67E755E0nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
The I= PLS draft passed the WG last call. It will be progressed as an informationa= l RFC by the WG chairs based on the interpretation of the rules governing t= he publication of historical and information RFCs. If it is to be converted= to a historical RFC, it will be an IESG decision.

Thanks,
Giles & Nabil

From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
Date: Thursday, January 3, 2013 5:16 PM
To: Sagessi <sajassi@cisco.com>, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.or= g" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: WG Last Call on draft-iet= f-l2vpn-ipls

I support in the same way  too.

 <= /p>

Lucy

 

From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [= mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: Thursday, January= 03, 2013 11:51 AM
To: Andrew G. Malis; Giles Heron
Cc:= l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Re= : WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls

 

+1

 

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, December 21, 2012 11= :28 AM
To: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf= .org>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls

 <= /o:p>

Giles,

I support publication, but I do wonder if Historic would be more appropriat= e at this point, unless there actually are implementations out there somewh= ere.

Cheers,

Andy

 

On= Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com> wrote:

This email initiates an L2VP= N WG Last Call for:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2v= pn-ipls-11

please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for publicat= ion as an Informational RFC from the L2VPN WG.  As always it'd be good= to hear some comments over and above the usual "Support!".  Well, giv= en the season any comments at all would be good ;)

this last call will close on Friday 4th January.

Nabil & Giles

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 01:36:29 -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: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:36:30 -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 Working = Group of the IETF. Title : PIM Snooping over VPLS Author(s) : Olivier Dornon Jayant Kotalwar Jeffrey Zhang Venu Hemige Ray Qiu Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-03.txt Pages : 41 Date : 2013-01-15 Abstract: In Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), as also in IEEE Bridged Networks, the switches simply flood multicast traffic on all ports in the LAN by default. IGMP Snooping is commonly deployed to ensure multicast traffic is not forwarded on ports without IGMP receivers. The procedures and recommendations for IGMP Snooping are defined in [IGMP-SNOOP]. But when any protocol other than IGMP is used, the common practice is to simply flood multicast traffic to all ports. PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, PIM-BIDIR are widely deployed routing protocols. PIM Snooping procedures are important to restrict multicast traffic to only the routers interested in receiving such traffic. While most of the PIM Snooping procedures defined here also apply to IEEE Bridged Networks, VPLS demands certain special procedures due to the split-horizon rules that require the Provider Edge (PE) devices to co-operate. This document describes the procedures and recommendations for PIM-Snooping in VPLS to facilitate replication to only those ports behind which there are interested PIM routers and/or IGMP hosts. This document also describes procedures for PIM Proxy. PIM Proxy is required on PEs for VPLS Multicast to work correctly when Join suppression is enabled in the VPLS. PIM Proxy also helps scale VPLS Multicast much better than just PIM Snooping. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Wed Jan 16 10:20:57 2013 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 3A7C121F88B1 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:20:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9CM1-rogUXw for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:20:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from fldsmtpe03.verizon.com (fldsmtpe03.verizon.com [140.108.26.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA6A21F87F5 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:20:55 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi02.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.144]) by fldsmtpe03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2013 18:20:48 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,480,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="397118528" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb03.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.86]) by fldsmtpi02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2013 18:20:46 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.45]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.86]) with mapi; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:20:45 -0500 To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:20:45 -0500 Subject: [l2vpn] Reissuing WGLC on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 in light of most recent IPR statement Thread-Topic: [l2vpn] Reissuing WGLC on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 in light of most recent IPR statement Thread-Index: Ac30FjOco0oAwpUGSiCYKFqwWF4yVQ== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1357148561.90708.YahooMailNeo@web120005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD1B8B5575A6Bnabilnbitarverizoncom_" 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: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:20:57 -0000 --_000_CD1B8B5575A6Bnabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, This is a reissue of a WG LC of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12.txt in light= of the IPR statement filed on December 08 2012, after the previous WG LC p= assed. The IPR statement can be accessed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ip= r/1939/. Please, take a look at the IPR statement, and respond back to the= l2vpn mailing list, by responding to this email, whether you support progr= essing the draft toward an RFC or you object to that. This WG last call will close on Tuesday 01/29/2013. Thanks, Nabil & Giles --_000_CD1B8B5575A6Bnabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

=
This is a reissue of a WG LC of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12.txt in = light of the IPR statement filed on December 08 2012, after the previous WG= LC passed. The IPR statement can be accessed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1939/. Please, take a look at th= e IPR statement, and  respond back to the l2vpn mailing list, by respo= nding to this email, whether you support progressing the draft toward an RF= C or you object to that.

This WG last call will cl= ose on  Tuesday 01/29/2013.

Thanks,
Nabil & Giles

--_000_CD1B8B5575A6Bnabilnbitarverizoncom_-- From smohanty@juniper.net Thu Jan 17 00:06:57 2013 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 88F4F21F8B6E for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:06:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.466 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cMI303vT9WxJ for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:06:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og127.obsmtp.com (exprod7og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00AAD21F8B58 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:06:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob127.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUPexG6ftDNCxwhcX/ps5kwCV5hc/J3Wy@postini.com; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:06:56 PST Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:31 -0800 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:05:31 -0800 Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (65.55.88.12) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:07:13 -0800 Received: from mail136-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.241) by TX2EHSOBE004.bigfish.com (10.9.40.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:05:25 +0000 Received: from mail136-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail136-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE99F3E00B9 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:05:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.236.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BY2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -2 X-BigFish: PS-2(zzc85fh1102I4015Izz1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz18c673hz2dh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h1155h) Received: from mail136-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail136-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 13584099231916_9326; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:05:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.240]) by mail136-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2CFF4E00AA for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:05:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BY2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.236.101) by TX2EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (10.9.99.117) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:05:22 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0510MB377.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.81]) by BY2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.84.40]) with mapi id 14.16.0257.004; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:05:21 +0000 From: Satya Mohanty To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn Thread-Topic: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn Thread-Index: Ac30iWWHrFd5Xl/7SvCQsA98hAv9eA== Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:05:21 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.51] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C268422298AE46FBY2PRD0510MB377_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net 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, 17 Jan 2013 08:06:57 -0000 --_000_DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C268422298AE46FBY2PRD0510MB377_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The information conveyed by the type-4 route Ethernet Segment Route is the = esi and as per the description in latest draft, this route (advertised by P= E1 lets's say) is to be "imported" by the receiver PE (let's say PE2, to wh= ich the CE is dual homed). The "import" is through the new extcom ES-Import= Extcom. I was thinking if we attach this ES-import extcom to the type 1 (Mandatory= ) Route; shouldn't it be sufficient? Then the type 1 route would be "imported" by the PE2 in question, and the E= SI is present in the type 1 Route. [The implementation anyway has to take care of this "import" filtering via= this new ext-com in addition to normal RTs.] In other words, is type -4 really necessary? Please do let me know if I am missing anything here. Thanks, --Satya --_000_DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C268422298AE46FBY2PRD0510MB377_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The information conveyed by the type-4 route Ethernet Segment Route is= the esi and as per the description in latest draft, this route (advertised= by PE1 lets’s say) is to be “imported” by the receiver P= E (let’s say PE2, to which the CE is dual homed). The “import” is through the new extcom ES-Import Extcom.
 
I was thinking if  we attach this ES-import extcom to the type 1 = (Mandatory) Route; shouldn’t it be sufficient?
 
Then the type 1 route would be “imported” by the PE2 in qu= estion, and the ESI is present in the type 1 Route.
[The implementation anyway has to take care of this “import̶= 1;  filtering via this new ext-com in addition to normal RTs.]
In other words, is type -4 really necessary?
 
Please do let me know if I am missing anything here.
 
Thanks,
--Satya
 
 
 --_000_DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C268422298AE46FBY2PRD0510MB377_-- From jakob.heitz@ericsson.com Thu Jan 17 00:58:46 2013 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 B32B021F8887 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:58:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OpflAJvHV4Ie for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:58:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (unknown [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B34A21F8745 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:58:44 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f926d000000e79-75-50f7bd4337e6 Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.90]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 0B.11.03705.34DB7F05; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:58:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.90]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 03:58:43 -0500 From: Jakob Heitz To: Satya Mohanty , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn Thread-Topic: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn Thread-Index: Ac30iWWHrFd5Xl/7SvCQsA98hAv9eAABAO8w Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:58:42 +0000 Message-ID: <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E168EAE@eusaamb109.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E168EAEeusaamb109ericsso_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlK7L3u8BBn2rRCwefzvEbnGl9T6L A5PHkiU/mTyuN11lD2CK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MqY/2k9S8Fj84rLa6awNDBuNuhi5OCQEDCR uL4upIuRE8gUk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAEUaJ3RcmsUI4yxklPv7dwQpSxSagI/HtehcziC0i4C0x +eRqNhBbWMBUYv2hVjaIuJnErKmrWCFsI4kt65ezg9gsAqoSi6/cZgSxeYF6v0ycChYXEkiQ aNy3jgnE5hRIlHgw5T3YHEagi76fWgMWZxYQl7j1ZD4TxKUCEkv2nGeGsEUlXj7+xwphK0ss ebKfBaI+X6LhwwQWiF2CEidnPmGZwCgyC8moWUjKZiEpg4jrSCzY/YkNwtaWWLbwNTOMfebA YyZk8QWM7KsYOUqLU8ty040MNzECo+eYBJvjDsYFnywPMUpzsCiJ84a6XggQEkhPLEnNTk0t SC2KLyrNSS0+xMjEwSnVwNhy9nV/Det+bXl7y53zOSbL7qoPZlhR+Vj51DoPDqPcDScubpDM qGgVCpVVfuKY4KXnO/PfAVd7zueSX9rP5zsL6S0+y7yUY8qWrIKE8COlN7V0HJbI8d5y8e9U 25BbESn50CH30bvj655Vu35j9fTo7S/bPPEHy4pNH94feDB13XvH8IMP5ZRYijMSDbWYi4oT AcnMc7NsAgAA 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, 17 Jan 2013 08:58:46 -0000 --_000_2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E168EAEeusaamb109ericsso_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable They are imported by a different set of PEs. The Ether-AD route per segment (type 1) is imported by all PEs that share an EVI on that segment The ES route (type 4) is imported by PEs that connect to the same segment, regardless of which EVIs may exist on the segment. It is used to inform PEs of other PEs connected to a common segment. It carries information about the segment that is not necessarily of interest to PEs that do not share the segment. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-01 -- Jakob Heitz. ________________________________ From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S= atya Mohanty Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:05 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn The information conveyed by the type-4 route Ethernet Segment Route is the = esi and as per the description in latest draft, this route (advertised by P= E1 lets's say) is to be "imported" by the receiver PE (let's say PE2, to wh= ich the CE is dual homed). The "import" is through the new extcom ES-Import= Extcom. I was thinking if we attach this ES-import extcom to the type 1 (Mandatory= ) Route; shouldn't it be sufficient? Then the type 1 route would be "imported" by the PE2 in question, and the E= SI is present in the type 1 Route. [The implementation anyway has to take care of this "import" filtering via= this new ext-com in addition to normal RTs.] In other words, is type -4 really necessary? Please do let me know if I am missing anything here. Thanks, --Satya --_000_2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E168EAEeusaamb109ericsso_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
They are imported by a d= ifferent set of PEs.
 
The Ether-AD route per s= egment (type 1) is imported by all
PEs that share an EVI on= that segment
 
The ES route (type 4) is= imported by PEs that connect to the same segment,
regardless of which EVIs= may exist on the segment.
It is used to inform PEs= of other PEs connected to a common segment.
It carries information a= bout the segment that is not necessarily
of interest to PEs that = do not share the segment. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-= route-01
&nbs= p;

-- Jakob Heitz.

 

From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailt= o:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Satya Mohanty
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:05 AM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn

The information conveyed by the type-4 route Ethernet Segment Route is= the esi and as per the description in latest draft, this route (advertised= by PE1 lets’s say) is to be “imported” by the receiver P= E (let’s say PE2, to which the CE is dual homed). The “import” is through the new extcom ES-Import Extcom.
 
I was thinking if  we attach this ES-import extcom to the type 1 = (Mandatory) Route; shouldn’t it be sufficient?
 
Then the type 1 route would be “imported” by the PE2 in qu= estion, and the ESI is present in the type 1 Route.
[The implementation anyway has to take care of this “import̶= 1;  filtering via this new ext-com in addition to normal RTs.]
In other words, is type -4 really necessary?
 
Please do let me know if I am missing anything here.
 
Thanks,
--Satya
 
 
--_000_2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E168EAEeusaamb109ericsso_-- From smohanty@juniper.net Thu Jan 17 10:15:58 2013 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 CB79A21F87D4 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:15:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.466 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O-h8znooCQ0H for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:15:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og122.obsmtp.com (exprod7og122.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89AC021F85C8 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:15:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob122.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUPg/2npvwnm8HksM2k0VQ/y1zRoG10HK@postini.com; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:15:54 PST Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:14:15 -0800 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:14:14 -0800 Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (213.199.154.144) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:16:00 -0800 Received: from mail90-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.238) by DB3EHSOBE007.bigfish.com (10.3.84.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:14:12 +0000 Received: from mail90-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail90-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB90180237 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:14:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.236.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BY2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -23 X-BigFish: PS-23(zz9371Ic85fh1102I4015Izz1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL17326ah18c673h8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h1155h) Received: from mail90-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail90-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1358446448823946_17608; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:14:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3EHSMHS021.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.228]) by mail90-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00AE320054; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:14:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BY2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.236.101) by DB3EHSMHS021.bigfish.com (10.3.87.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:14:06 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0510MB377.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.81]) by BY2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.84.37]) with mapi id 14.16.0257.004; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:14:05 +0000 From: Satya Mohanty To: Jakob Heitz , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn Thread-Topic: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn Thread-Index: Ac30iWWHrFd5Xl/7SvCQsA98hAv9eAABAO8wABNBJDA= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:14:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E168EAE@eusaamb109.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E168EAE@eusaamb109.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.50] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C268422298AE5ACBY2PRD0510MB377_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%ERICSSON.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net 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, 17 Jan 2013 18:15:59 -0000 --_000_DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C268422298AE5ACBY2PRD0510MB377_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jakob, Thanks for your clarification and the pointer to the draft that you mention= ed. There is use of a BGP attribute (DF Election attribute) which is not mentio= ned at all in the latest draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-= evpn-02. [only the ESI-import ext com is mentioned, and the ESI route itself does no= t contain any more information other than the ESI id]. The latest draft doe= s talk of DF election algorithm, so it is not clear to me whether the "DF E= lection attribute" in the draft you point out is necessary now. Keeping this in context, I don't see the extra information that the ESI se= gment route is conveying which is already not present in type 1 (mandatory)= ; the "information" is the ESI-id as far as I can tell. Thanks, --Satya From: Jakob Heitz [mailto:jakob.heitz@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:59 AM To: Satya Mohanty; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn They are imported by a different set of PEs. The Ether-AD route per segment (type 1) is imported by all PEs that share an EVI on that segment The ES route (type 4) is imported by PEs that connect to the same segment, regardless of which EVIs may exist on the segment. It is used to inform PEs of other PEs connected to a common segment. It carries information about the segment that is not necessarily of interest to PEs that do not share the segment. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-01 -- Jakob Heitz. ________________________________ From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S= atya Mohanty Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:05 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn The information conveyed by the type-4 route Ethernet Segment Route is the = esi and as per the description in latest draft, this route (advertised by P= E1 lets's say) is to be "imported" by the receiver PE (let's say PE2, to wh= ich the CE is dual homed). The "import" is through the new extcom ES-Import= Extcom. I was thinking if we attach this ES-import extcom to the type 1 (Mandatory= ) Route; shouldn't it be sufficient? Then the type 1 route would be "imported" by the PE2 in question, and the E= SI is present in the type 1 Route. [The implementation anyway has to take care of this "import" filtering via= this new ext-com in addition to normal RTs.] In other words, is type -4 really necessary? Please do let me know if I am missing anything here. Thanks, --Satya --_000_DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C268422298AE5ACBY2PRD0510MB377_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jakob,<= /p>

 <= /p>

Thanks for your clarifica= tion and the pointer to the draft that you mentioned.

 <= /p>

There is use of a BGP att= ribute (DF Election attribute) which is not mentioned at all in the latest = draft http://tool= s.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-02.

[only the ESI-import ext = com is mentioned, and the ESI route itself does not contain any more inform= ation other than the ESI id]. The latest draft does talk of DF election algorithm, so it is not clear to me whether the “DF E= lection attribute” in the draft you point out is necessary now.<= /o:p>

 <= /p>

Keeping this in context, = I don’t see the extra information that  the ESI segment route is= conveying which is already not present in type 1 (mandatory); the “information” is the ESI-id as far as I can tell.  <= /o:p>

 <= /p>

Thanks,=

--Satya=

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

From: Jakob He= itz [mailto:jakob.heitz@ericsson.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:59 AM
To: Satya Mohanty; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn

 

They are imported by a different set of PE= s.

 

The Ether-AD route per segment (type 1) is= imported by all

PEs that share an EVI on that segment=

 

The ES route (type 4) is imported by PEs t= hat connect to the same segment,

regardless of which EVIs may exist on the = segment.

It is used to inform PEs of other PEs conn= ected to a common segment.

It carries information about the segment t= hat is not necessarily

of interest to PEs that do not share the s= egment. See

http://t= ools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-01

 

--
Jakob Heitz.

 

 

From:<= /span> l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.or= g] On Behalf Of Satya Mohanty
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:05 AM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Regd. ESI Segment Route (Type 4) in evpn<= /p>

The information conveyed by the type-4 = route Ethernet Segment Route is the esi and as per the description in lates= t draft, this route (advertised by PE1 lets’s say) is to be “imported” by the receiver PE (let’s say PE2, to whic= h the CE is dual homed). The “import” is through the new extcom= ES-Import Extcom.

 

I was thinking if  we attach this = ES-import extcom to the type 1 (Mandatory) Route; shouldn’t it be suf= ficient?

 

Then the type 1 route would be “i= mported” by the PE2 in question, and the ESI is present in the type 1= Route.

[The implementation anyway has to take = care of this “import”  filtering via this new ext-com in a= ddition to normal RTs.]

In other words, is type -4 really neces= sary?

 

Please do let me know if I am missing a= nything here.

 

Thanks,

--Satya

 

 

--_000_DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C268422298AE5ACBY2PRD0510MB377_-- From giheron@cisco.com Wed Jan 30 05:37:24 2013 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 2BF2421F866D for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:37:24 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tS+W1qTZqnNN for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:37:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142EE21F861F for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:37:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=760; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1359553038; x=1360762638; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BHCCsktBYTMDB9SEGmSlZlOD/ju+mS5Gmf7xXqXWnS0=; b=PTo3XRESGm2B/c2RlWqLtxbM09tGUYRMRAHLrvmsHIlHb+F5CgGhqu3H KQ3wNTXoyvh2oMP2/xs7ofYkT6taObaRGxFf+uE/Yx6muw01zrzicV3Lc rxOY1l/CFpHrtQJQ6CJilBjGQMtY+C+NBrez+MhhRILcxJN+sAhwe2FsO 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFAOkgCVGtJXG//2dsb2JhbABFhgC5EhZzgiABBDo/EgEqFEInBA4NiAkMwUAEkClhA6ZYgneCJA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,568,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="170452500" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2013 13:37:15 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0UDbFWD004267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:37:15 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.79]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:37:15 -0600 From: "Giles Heron (giheron)" To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model and draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop Thread-Topic: IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model and draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop Thread-Index: AQHN/u7qg2QstX+5R02pvszOj9eBJw== Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:37:14 +0000 Message-ID: <136D0A04DAA0A64881D68D8374E6E07709013F96@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.81.94] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <57B948684C3BE441A96011B98711BD0F@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:37:24 -0000 At the Atlanta IETF we discussed an issue we have with IPR related to the t= wo PBB VPLS drafts. to recap, and for those who weren't there, the issue is that Nortel disclos= ed IPR claims relating to the two drafts, but they were never discussed on = the list and the ownership of the IPR is now uncertain. The statements are = here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1497 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1498 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1251 given the uncertainty as to the ownership of the IPR the WG may wish to con= sider whether to progress with these drafts as informational RFCs. we'd welcome discussion as to whether to progress on the list and will look= to make a decision by Wednesday 13th February. Nabil & Giles= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jan 30 05:58:40 2013 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 3F2D621F8B11; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:58:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JgFeIv6q0jUo; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:58:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC97721F8A90; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:58:39 -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-13.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.37 Message-ID: <20130130135839.3348.62737.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 05:58:39 -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: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:58:40 -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 Working = Group of the IETF. Title : Multicast in VPLS Author(s) : Rahul Aggarwal Juniper Networks Yuji Kamite Luyuan Fang Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-13.txt Pages : 47 Date : 2013-01-28 Abstract: 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. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-13 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-13 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Thu Jan 31 14:50:05 2013 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 8EC6321F87E7 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:50:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0sNbwpoQNXBO for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:50:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from fldsmtpe03.verizon.com (fldsmtpe03.verizon.com [140.108.26.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96FA821F87D7 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:50:04 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi03.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.145]) by fldsmtpe03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2013 22:50:03 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" To: "Bitar, Nabil N" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,579,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="406724903" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb01.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.45.78]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 31 Jan 2013 22:50:03 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.45]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB01.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.78]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:50:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:50:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [l2vpn] Reissuing WGLC on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 in light of most recent IPR statement Thread-Topic: [l2vpn] Reissuing WGLC on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 in light of most recent IPR statement Thread-Index: Ac4ABU5rQdlrrUS0RSS5qiXwJo6hMA== 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/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD305E4C7699Enabilnbitarverizoncom_" 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: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:50:05 -0000 --_000_CD305E4C7699Enabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, There was no issue brought up on the list related to this IPR WG LC that cl= osed on 1/29/2013. Thus, the draft is assumed to have passed this IPR WG LC= . We will proceed with the draft toward RFC publication. Thanks, Nabil & Giles From: , Nabil Bitar > Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:20 PM To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Cc: Giles Heron > Subject: [l2vpn] Reissuing WGLC on the VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vp= n-vpls-mcast-12 in light of most recent IPR statement Hi, This is a reissue of a WG LC of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12.txt in light= of the IPR statement filed on December 08 2012, after the previous WG LC p= assed. The IPR statement can be accessed at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ip= r/1939/. Please, take a look at the IPR statement, and respond back to the= l2vpn mailing list, by responding to this email, whether you support progr= essing the draft toward an RFC or you object to that. This WG last call will close on Tuesday 01/29/2013. Thanks, Nabil & Giles --_000_CD305E4C7699Enabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
There was = no issue brought up on the list related to this IPR WG LC that closed on 1/= 29/2013. Thus, the draft is assumed to have passed this IPR WG LC. We will = proceed with the draft toward RFC publication.

Tha= nks,
Nabil & Giles

From: <Bitar>, Nabil Bitar <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:20 PM=
To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ie= tf.org>
Cc: Giles Heron = <giheron@cisco.com>
Subject: [l2vpn] Reissuing WGLC on the = VPLS multicast draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-12 in light of most recent= IPR statement

Hi= ,

This is a reissue of a WG LC of draft-ietf-l2vpn= -vpls-mcast-12.txt in light of the IPR statement filed on December 08 2012,= after the previous WG LC passed. The IPR statement can be accessed at = ;https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1939/. Please, take a look at the IPR statement, and  respond back to the l2= vpn mailing list, by responding to this email, whether you support progress= ing the draft toward an RFC or you object to that.

This WG last call will close on  Tuesday 01/29/2013.

Thanks,
Nabil & Giles

--_000_CD305E4C7699Enabilnbitarverizoncom_--