From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed May 15 07:55:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428DC21F85CE; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:55:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.478 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ennAJkdeXfkg; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EF821F859D; Wed, 15 May 2013 07:55:17 -0700 (PDT) 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-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-01.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.45 Message-ID: <20130515145517.13744.99865.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 07:55:17 -0700 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@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, 15 May 2013 14:55:18 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working = Group of the IETF. Title : Encoding mLDP FECs in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes Author(s) : IJsbrand Wijnands Eric C. Rosen Uwe Joorde Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-01.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2013-05-15 Abstract: Many service providers offer "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to their customers. Existing IETF standards specify the procedures and protocols that a service provider uses in order to offer this service to customers who have IP unicast and IP multicast traffic in their VPNs. It is also desirable to be able to support customers who have MPLS multicast traffic in their VPNs. This document specifies the procedures and protocol extensions that are needed to support customers who use the Multicast Extensions to Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP) as the control protocol for their MPLS multicast traffic. Existing standards do provide some support for customers who use mLDP, but only under a restrictive set of circumstances. This document generalizes the existing support to include all cases where the customer uses mLDP, without any restrictions. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From erosen@cisco.com Fri May 17 07:49:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79D321F9579 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 07:49:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D3GAL7u7ojvD for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 07:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86D421F9434 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 07:49:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2954; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368802141; x=1370011741; h=from:to:subject:reply-to:date:message-id; bh=lQkXJiOprF94DNiM6/B/1VOHdfsgKZJOeqt3o6ao93Y=; b=RRG35s0X2MSJnthDN8XMlg9JpqCOto2a0uxdTZdHyS1RndAfwYGW3la+ lZ6xsaB9breVmTDOhF1qXEwrlQKLrs7QiDwK7xBi4a31S2RMJfclO+Hr1 8otKzq8OuVfwe6MKdTa8F0gC3gB32Gjp76VY/XNhuCP6eNYBRXFCbUjfG o=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,692,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="211882185" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2013 14:48:58 +0000 Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4HEmviO010497 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 May 2013 14:48:58 GMT Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4HEmvC2025778; Fri, 17 May 2013 10:48:57 -0400 From: Eric Rosen To: L3VPN Subject: Comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribute-00.txt X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3.1; nmh 1.5; GNU Emacs 24.3.1 Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:48:57 -0400 Message-ID: <25777.1368802137@erosen-linux> X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:49:07 -0000 I have a few comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribute-00.txt. This draft seems to assume the following combination of circumstances: 1. Each VRF of a given MVPN originates an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route. 2. Each such route contains a PMSI Tunnel attribute specifying a tunnel of type "RSVP-TE P2MP LSP" or of type "Ingress Replication". 3. Some of the VRFs are connected only to sites that have multicast senders but no multicast receivers. (It is not clear from the draft whether this is supposed to be known by provisioning, or learned dynamically.) According to the procedures of RFC6514, each such VRF will become the root of an inclusive P-tunnel (e.g.,an RSVP-TE P2MP LSP), and will add the other VRFs as leaf nodes. This draft proposes that if a VRF, say VRF1, has no receivers, it should add a "sender-only attribute" to its Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route. Then if another VRF, say VRF2, imports VRF1's Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route, VRF2 will know not to add VRF1 to the inclusive P-tunnel of which VRF2 is the root. The draft does not actually point out that its applicability is limited to the case where the tunnel type is RSVP-TE or Ingress Replication, but its procedures do not make any sense otherwise. The draft also fails to point out that its applicability is restricted to the case where the inclusive P-tunnels are not segmented, though this may be inferred from the fact that there are no procedures given for Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes. The draft also needs to point out that its procedures will not work properly if PIM is the C-multicast protocol. The proposed new attribute has three values ("sender only", "receiver only", "both"), and lots of extra bits, but as far as I can tell the attribute has no effect at all unless it is set to "sender only". In any event, I don't believe this mechanism is needed, as the problem addressed by the draft can already be solved, using the existing standards, as follows: - All VRFs originate the Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes without including a PMSI Tunnel attribute. - All VRFs attached to sites with senders Originate a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route (RFC6625) with a PMSI Tunnel Attribute. (VRFs attached to sites without senders should not originate the wildcard route.) Then the existing procedures from RFCs 6514 and 6625 already ensure that VRF1 will not get added to a P-tunnel rooted at VRF2 unless VRF1 actually has interest in a C-flow from VRF2. Problem solved, no new standards needed. Note that if VRF2 is attached to a site with senders, the procedures in the draft will add VRF1 to the P-tunnel rooted at VRF2 even if VRF1 does not have interest in any C-flow from any of VRF2's senders. If the goal is to optimize the amount of tunnel state in the core, the use of the wildcard S-PMSI is more optimal than the procedures proposed in the draft. From lucy.yong@huawei.com Tue May 21 07:27:09 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A1021F97F3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:27:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QVTwZ54o76-5 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9118321F97EA for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARP04219; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:26:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 21 May 2013 15:26:14 +0100 Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 21 May 2013 15:26:22 +0100 Received: from DFWEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.11.169]) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.132]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 21 May 2013 07:26:15 -0700 From: Lucy yong To: L3VPN Subject: FW: New Version Notification for draft-yong-l3vpn-nvgre-vxlan-encap-01.txt Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-yong-l3vpn-nvgre-vxlan-encap-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHOVi7Lp7zaYCHbe06E4YurpoD9SJkPsVgA Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:26:15 +0000 Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4526C179@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.142.169] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-BeenThere: l3vpn@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, 21 May 2013 14:27:10 -0000 RllJLiBXZWxjb21lIGEgY29tbWVudCBvbiB0aGlzLg0KDQpMdWN5DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5h bCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86 aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnXQ0KPiBTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBNYXkgMjEsIDIwMTMg OToyNCBBTQ0KPiBUbzogTHVjeSB5b25nOyBYdXhpYW9odTsgWHV4aWFvaHUNCj4gU3ViamVjdDog TmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC15b25nLWwzdnBuLW52Z3JlLXZ4bGFu LQ0KPiBlbmNhcC0wMS50eHQNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIEktRCwgZHJhZnQt eW9uZy1sM3Zwbi1udmdyZS12eGxhbi1lbmNhcC0wMS50eHQNCj4gaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1 bGx5IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBMdWN5IFlvbmcgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUNCj4gSUVURiByZXBv c2l0b3J5Lg0KPiANCj4gRmlsZW5hbWU6CSBkcmFmdC15b25nLWwzdnBuLW52Z3JlLXZ4bGFuLWVu Y2FwDQo+IFJldmlzaW9uOgkgMDENCj4gVGl0bGU6CQkgTlZHUkUgYW5kIFZYTEFOIEVuY2Fwc3Vs YXRpb24gZm9yIEwzVlBOIEV4dGVuc2lvbg0KPiBDcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlOgkgMjAxMy0wNS0yMQ0K PiBHcm91cDoJCSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NCj4gTnVtYmVyIG9mIHBhZ2VzOiA3DQo+ IFVSTDogICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJh ZnQteW9uZy1sM3Zwbi0NCj4gbnZncmUtdnhsYW4tZW5jYXAtMDEudHh0DQo+IFN0YXR1czogICAg ICAgICAgaHR0cDovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC15b25nLWwzdnBuLQ0K PiBudmdyZS12eGxhbi1lbmNhcA0KPiBIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXlvbmctbDN2cG4tbnZncmUtDQo+IHZ4bGFuLWVuY2FwLTAxDQo+IERp ZmY6ICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9yZmNkaWZmP3VybDI9ZHJhZnQteW9u Zy1sM3Zwbi0NCj4gbnZncmUtdnhsYW4tZW5jYXAtMDENCj4gDQo+IEFic3RyYWN0Og0KPiAgICBU aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHNwZWNpZmllcyBOVkdSRSBhbmQgVlhMQU4gZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlvbiBmb3Ig TDNWUE4NCj4gICAgRXh0ZW5zaW9uLiBCb3RoIE5WR1JFIGFuZCBWWExBTiBhcmUgb3JpZ2luYWxs eSBkZXNpZ25lZCBmb3IgTDINCj4gICAgb3ZlcmxheS4gVGhlIGRyYWZ0IHByb3Bvc2VzIHRoZSBl bmhhbmNlbWVudCBvbiBib3RoIHRvIGFsbG93IEwzDQo+ICAgIG92ZXJsYXkgY29tcGxldGVseSBk ZWNvdXBsZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgTDIgb3ZlcmxheSBpbiB0ZXJtcyBvZg0KPiAgICBlbmNvZGluZyBz Y2hlbWEgYW5kIGRhdGEgcHJvY2Vzc2luZy4NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgSUVU RiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo= From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu May 23 07:16:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A804921F964A; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hvHwTLPEwEAj; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0F921F9640; Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:19 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Subject: Last Call: (Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs) to Proposed Standard X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.50 Sender: Message-ID: <20130523141619.7929.98531.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 07:16:19 -0700 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:16:19 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks WG (l3vpn) to consider the following document: - 'Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract With BGP/MPLS VPNs, providing any-to-any connectivity among sites of a given Virtual Private Network would require each Provider Edge router that has one or more of these sites connected to it to hold all the routes of that Virtual Private Network. The approach described in this document allows to reduce the number of Provider Edge routers that have to maintain all these routes by requiring only a subset of these routers to maintain all these routes. Furthermore, when Provider Edge routers use ingress replication to carry multicast traffic of VPN customers, the approach described in this document may under certain circumstances allow to reduce bandwidth inefficiency associated with ingress replication, and to redistribute the replication load among Provider Edge routers. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From kurapati@juniper.net Fri May 24 06:59:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A7B21F9029; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:59:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.111 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_6CONS_WORD=0.356, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73iulMCL7DXc; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA12E21F8FD0; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:58:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUZ9yFs6SOAa0GyTUGwpL8gwfZ4HR7/xF@postini.com; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:58:56 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:57:10 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:57:10 -0700 Received: from co1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.185) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 24 May 2013 07:00:45 -0700 Received: from mail41-co1-R.bigfish.com (10.243.78.249) by CO1EHSOBE038.bigfish.com (10.243.66.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:09 +0000 Received: from mail41-co1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail41-co1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776FAA60111; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:132.245.2.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BN1PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -24 X-BigFish: PS-24(zz9371I936eI542I4015Izz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1033IL17326ah8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h93fhd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1155h) Received-SPF: softfail (mail41-co1: transitioning domain of juniper.net does not designate 132.245.2.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=132.245.2.21; envelope-from=kurapati@juniper.net; helo=BN1PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; Received: from mail41-co1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail41-co1 (MessageSwitch) id 136940382841738_9253; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO1EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (unknown [10.243.78.227]) by mail41-co1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2904240062; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BN1PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (132.245.2.21) by CO1EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (10.243.66.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:57:07 +0000 Received: from BN1PRD0512MB666.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.105]) by BN1PRD0512HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.193.34]) with mapi id 14.16.0311.000; Fri, 24 May 2013 13:56:58 +0000 From: Pavan Kurapati To: "l3vpn@ietf.org" , "pim@ietf.org" Subject: FW: New Version Notification for draft-kurapati-dynamicrp-bgpmvpn-00.txt Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-kurapati-dynamicrp-bgpmvpn-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHOWApt2f1e6uS8Ckiq+Yr62KE3GpkUWsmA Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:56:58 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 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-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%ATT.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:59:03 -0000 SGksDQpXZSBwdWJsaXNoZWQgYSBuZXcgZHJhZnQgZm9yIGVuY29kaW5nIEJTUiBpbmZvcm1hdGlv biBpbiBCR1AgZm9yIEJHUC1NVlBOIGJhc2VkIGRlcGxveW1lbnRzLiBQbGVhc2UgcmV2aWV3IGFu ZCBsZXQgdXMga25vdyB5b3VyIGZlZWRiYWNrLg0KDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2lkL2Ry YWZ0LWt1cmFwYXRpLWR5bmFtaWNycC1iZ3BtdnBuLTAwLnR4dA0KDQoNClRoYW5rcywNClBhdmFu DQoNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0Bp ZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gDQpTZW50OiBUaHVyc2Rh eSwgTWF5IDIzLCAyMDEzIDc6MDggUE0NClRvOiBQYXZhbiBLdXJhcGF0aTsgTWFyY28gUm9kcmln dWVzOyBTYXVkIEFzaWY7IEt1cnQgV2luZGlzY2gNClN1YmplY3Q6IE5ldyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlm aWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQta3VyYXBhdGktZHluYW1pY3JwLWJncG12cG4tMDAudHh0DQoNCg0K QSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWt1cmFwYXRpLWR5bmFtaWNycC1iZ3BtdnBuLTAw LnR4dA0KaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBQYXZhbiBLdXJhcGF0aSBh bmQgcG9zdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBJRVRGIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQoNCkZpbGVuYW1lOgkgZHJhZnQta3Vy YXBhdGktZHluYW1pY3JwLWJncG12cG4NClJldmlzaW9uOgkgMDANClRpdGxlOgkJIER5bmFtaWMg UlAgZW5jb2RpbmdzIGluIEJHUCBiYXNlZCBNVlBOcw0KQ3JlYXRpb24gZGF0ZToJIDIwMTMtMDUt MjQNCkdyb3VwOgkJIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KTnVtYmVyIG9mIHBhZ2VzOiAyMA0K VVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFm dC1rdXJhcGF0aS1keW5hbWljcnAtYmdwbXZwbi0wMC50eHQNClN0YXR1czogICAgICAgICAgaHR0 cDovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1rdXJhcGF0aS1keW5hbWljcnAtYmdw bXZwbg0KSHRtbGl6ZWQ6ICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1r dXJhcGF0aS1keW5hbWljcnAtYmdwbXZwbi0wMA0KDQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgUElNIEdyb3Vw LXRvLVJQIG1hcHBpbmdzIGFyZSBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCBkeW5hbWljYWxseSB1c2luZyBwcm90b2Nv bHMNCiAgIHN1Y2ggYXMgQlNSIG9yIEF1dG8tUlAuICBUaGUgQkdQLU1WUE4gc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlv biBwcm92aWRlcyBmb3IgdGhpcw0KICAgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdG8gYmUgZW5jYXBzdWxhdGVkIGlu IGFuIEktUE1TSSBvciBTLVBNU0kgcHJvdmlkZXIgdHVubmVsDQogICBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSBQRXMg aW4gYW4gTVZQTiBlbnZpcm9ubWVudC4gIFNpbmNlIHRoaXMgaXMgY29udHJvbA0KICAgaW5mb3Jt YXRpb24sIGl0IGlzIGRlc2lyYWJsZSB0byBzaWduYWwgdGhpcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbiBCR1AN CiAgIGJldHdlZW4gUEVzLCBzaW1pbGFyIHRvIGNhcnJ5aW5nIG90aGVyIGN1c3RvbWVyIGNvbnRy b2wgc3RhdGUgc3VjaCBhcw0KICAgQy1NdWx0aWNhc3Qgcm91dGVzLiAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBz cGVjaWZpZXMgdGhlIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgYW5kDQogICBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIHRvIGNhcnJ5IGJvb3Rz dHJhcCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB2aWEgQkdQIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgdHJ1ZQ0KICAgY29udHJvbCBhbmQg ZGF0YSBwbGFuZSBzZXBhcmF0aW9uLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0K VGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0KDQo= From zzhang@juniper.net Thu May 30 11:39:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8064221F909A for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 11:39:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.867 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c1grwCWTQVtf for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 11:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F63621F9080 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 11:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUaec4DwVNw0zsr6UYUNDJ+qerJSorhde@postini.com; Thu, 30 May 2013 11:39:28 PDT 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, 30 May 2013 11:35:56 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 30 May 2013 11:35:56 -0700 Received: from DB8EHSOBE031.bigfish.com (213.199.154.185) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 30 May 2013 11:46:36 -0700 Received: from mail201-db8-R.bigfish.com (10.174.8.244) by DB8EHSOBE031.bigfish.com (10.174.4.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 30 May 2013 18:35:53 +0000 Received: from mail201-db8 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail201-db8-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AA07A024C for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 18:35:53 +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: -4 X-BigFish: PS-4(zz9371I542Iec9I1432Idb82hzz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzzz31h2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1155h) Received-SPF: softfail (mail201-db8: transitioning domain of juniper.net does not designate 157.56.236.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.236.101; envelope-from=zzhang@juniper.net; helo=BY2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; Received: from mail201-db8 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail201-db8 (MessageSwitch) id 1369938951800681_13955; Thu, 30 May 2013 18:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB8EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.8.248]) by mail201-db8.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B64E92C004C; Thu, 30 May 2013 18:35:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BY2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.236.101) by DB8EHSMHS004.bigfish.com (10.174.4.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 30 May 2013 18:35:49 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0510MB389.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.4.87]) by BY2PRD0510HT002.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.84.37]) with mapi id 14.16.0311.000; Thu, 30 May 2013 18:35:48 +0000 From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" To: Eric Rosen , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribute-00.txt Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribute-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHOUzEZI6vLNKQUw0qfi4ZAThJmipkJ0sZg Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 18:35:47 +0000 Message-ID: <0BF0FCC78340F147BE76A6F5762318A835F0F8DE@BY2PRD0510MB389.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <25777.1368802137@erosen-linux> In-Reply-To: <25777.1368802137@erosen-linux> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2] 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$Dn%CISCO.COM$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$Dn%ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net Cc: "'Rema devi, Geetha \(Geetha\)'" , "'Kotalwar, Jayant \(Jayant\)'" , "'Birajdar, Girish \(Girish\)'" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@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, 30 May 2013 18:39:35 -0000 Eric, Thanks for your review and comments. Please see below. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:49 AM > To: L3VPN > Subject: Comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribute-00.txt >=20 >=20 > I have a few comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribute-00.txt. >=20 > This draft seems to assume the following combination of circumstances: >=20 > 1. Each VRF of a given MVPN originates an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route. >=20 > 2. Each such route contains a PMSI Tunnel attribute specifying a tunnel o= f > type "RSVP-TE P2MP LSP" or of type "Ingress Replication". >=20 > 3. Some of the VRFs are connected only to sites that have multicast sende= rs > but no multicast receivers. (It is not clear from the draft whether t= his > is supposed to be known by provisioning, or learned dynamically.) >=20 > According to the procedures of RFC6514, each such VRF will become the roo= t > of an inclusive P-tunnel (e.g.,an RSVP-TE P2MP LSP), and will add the oth= er > VRFs as leaf nodes. This draft proposes that if a VRF, say VRF1, has no > receivers, it should add a "sender-only attribute" to its Intra-AS I-PMSI > A-D route. Then if another VRF, say VRF2, imports VRF1's Intra-AS I-PMSI > A-D route, VRF2 will know not to add VRF1 to the inclusive P-tunnel of > which VRF2 is the root. >=20 > The draft does not actually point out that its applicability is limited > to the case where the tunnel type is RSVP-TE or Ingress Replication, but > its procedures do not make any sense otherwise. The draft also fails to > point out that its applicability is restricted to the case where the > inclusive P-tunnels are not segmented, though this may be inferred from t= he fact > that there are no procedures given for Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes. The > draft also needs to point out that its procedures will not work properly = if > PIM is the C-multicast protocol. We will clarify all that. >=20 > The proposed new attribute has three values ("sender only", "receiver > only", "both"), and lots of extra bits, but as far as I can tell the attr= ibute > has no effect at all unless it is set to "sender only". Yes only "sender only" is really needed, and others will be removed. >=20 > In any event, I don't believe this mechanism is needed, as the problem > addressed by the draft can already be solved, using the existing > standards, as follows: >=20 > - All VRFs originate the Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes without including a > PMSI Tunnel attribute. >=20 > - All VRFs attached to sites with senders Originate a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI > A-D route (RFC6625) with a PMSI Tunnel Attribute. (VRFs attached to > sites without senders should not originate the wildcard route.) >=20 > Then the existing procedures from RFCs 6514 and 6625 already ensure > that VRF1 will not get added to a P-tunnel rooted at VRF2 unless VRF1 > actually has interest in a C-flow from VRF2. Problem solved, no new stan= dards > needed. That is at the cost of extra (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI and corresponding Leaf A-D ro= utes. With just a simple additional sender-only attribute, the same result = can be achieved w/o the need of (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI and corresponding Leaf A-D= routes. >=20 > Note that if VRF2 is attached to a site with senders, the procedures in t= he > draft will add VRF1 to the P-tunnel rooted at VRF2 even if VRF1 does not > have interest in any C-flow from any of VRF2's senders. That's a argument for I-PMSI vs. (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI. The context of this prop= osal is that I-PMSI is used anyway (e.g., non-segmented inter-as provider t= unnel) - you can simply use the new attribute. > If the goal is to > optimize the amount of tunnel state in the core, the use of the wildcard > S-PMSI is more optimal than the procedures proposed in the draft. In case of Ingress Replication, there is no core state anyway and the savin= g is on the (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI AD and corresponding Leaf-AD route. Thanks. Jeffrey