RE: PBB E-VPN and TRILL

[Lucy yong <[e-mail]>]

There is another draft to be considered.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yong-trill-trill-o-mpls-01.txt

Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Balaji Venkat Venkataswami
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:34 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: PBB E-VPN and TRILL

Hi  Giles,

I totally agree on this point. We have a solution that was presented to the TRILL
working group as well on the interconnection of TRILL islands. We would like to 
concur with this and request for entering our draft as well into the solution space.

The URL for the TRILL draft is as follows.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balaji-trill-over-ip-multi-level-05


thanks and regards,
balaji venkat

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:04 PM	
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Stewart Bryant
Subject: PBB E-VPN and TRILL

Ali presented the PBB-EVPN draft at IETF83 in Paris:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-01

This has since been updated:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02

During our discussions Ali mentioned that the authors would like the TRILL section of the draft to be separated out into a separate draft.  In response Stewart questioned whether interconnecting TRILL islands is in-scope for L2VPN.

Stewart, Nabil and I have just been discussing these issues.  Whilst TRILL interconnect is not explicitly in-charter for L2VPN it would appear to be implicitly in-charter - our decision to standardise solutions for PBB VPLS and PBB E-VPN probably sets a precedent (since PBB is also unmentioned by the charter).

On this basis we would like to ask the WG the following three questions:

1) is the WG happy for us to pursue interconnection of TRILL islands over L2VPN?

2) is the WG happy for the authors to split the TRILL section of the PBB E-VPN draft into a separate draft?

3) is the WG happy for the TRILL draft to be a WG doc?

Please respond by May 22nd if you are unhappy with any of these 3 actions (I'll take no response to mean the WG is in agreement with us proceeding...)

Giles