RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt
"Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" <sajassi@cisco.com> Tue, 25 October 2005 17:47 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUStD-00072O-W1; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:47:12 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EUStB-0006yC-Vt for l2vpn@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:47:10 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08427 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:46:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EUT6A-000427-27 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:00:36 -0400
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2005 10:46:48 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,250,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="356516121:sNHT1317576900"
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j9PHka9A002749; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.156]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:46:43 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:46:42 -0700
Message-ID: <75B2A84D9323BC4CA3977CF378CE75EBB11729@xmb-sjc-21e.amer.cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcXUG7IRXI8XwxmVSjK8lj4DCo5BEQFDiYvQABgSceA=
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>, l2vpn@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2005 17:46:43.0649 (UTC) FILETIME=[0FF80B10:01C5D98C]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc:
Subject: RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: l2vpn.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org
I forgot to mention about another issue which is: sending unknown unicast frames over shared MDT and learning action at the egress PE. When the MDT is a shared-tree, then the tree identifier identifies the RP node and not the ingress PE nodes. Therefore, another label is needed to identify the ingress PE - e.g., a packet received at the egress PE will have three labels (outer-label identifying the tree, middle label identifying the ingress PE, and inner label identifying the VPLS instance). If this is deemed too tedious, then the use of shared-MDT for unknown unicast traffic should be avoided and instead ingress replication over P2P PWs should be used. -Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 12:16 AM > To: Shane Amante; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt > > > > This draft is in good alignment with L3VPN multicast > mechanism and uses the same constructs as L3VPN mechanism > (such as selective/inclusive and aggregate > selective/inclusive MDTs). As such I would support this draft > in leveraging such constructs in providing provider-based > multicast trees for VPLS and avoiding ingress replication. > However, there are certain limitations in using MDT wrt VPLS > that need to be clearly stated in this draft. These > limitations have been described in > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop for over a year now. > > 1) Since multicast and unicast paths are different in the > network, it can result in a loop within the customer's > network or can result in black holing the customer traffic. > In this scheme the BPDUs is sent either on unicast or > multicast tunnels. A failure of the tunnel carrying BPDU can > result in loops within provider and customer network. And a > failure of the tunnel not carrying BPDUs can result in black > holing customer traffic over that tunnel. > > 2) Since multicast and unicast paths are different in the > network, the service provider or customer Ethernet OAM > (802.1ag or ITU Y.17ethoam) does not work because the Eth OAM > frames are sent over one path or another and thus the failure > for one of them (either unicast or multicast paths) cannot be > detected anymore by this mechanism. > > 3) If unknown unicast are sent over MDT, then this may result > in packet re-ordering (this is mentioned in the draft). > > Couple of other comments: > > A) The mechanism for upstream label assignment and discovery > for shared-tree needs to be described or else indicate it is > for future study. In other words, for shared-tree what type > of label assignment is used between ingress PE and RP, and > between RP and egress PE. Also how does discovery works with > having RP in between. > > B) Section 16 talks about encapsulation for mcast data and > only IP packets are shown without any MAC address. However, > the text states that VSI is used for forwarding these > packets. The VSI is basically a filtering database which uses > MAC address for forwarding the frames and not IP addresses. > > -Ali > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org > [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Shane Amante > > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:37 PM > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt > > > > Folks, > > > > Please voice your opinion and comment on whether this draft should > > become a L2VPN WG document. There has been good support for it > > becoming a WG document at the last IETF. This draft is important > > because it defines the procedures for supporting Multicast > Trees over > > VPLS. > > > > Please let us know your opinion and comments by Tuesday, 10/25. > > > > Vach & Shane > > >
- draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Shane Amante
- Re: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Thomas Morin
- RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Yuji KAMITE
- RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt McCoy, Chris
- RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Yuji KAMITE
- Re: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Marc Lasserre
- Re: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Rahul Aggarwal
- Re: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Yuichi Ikejiri
- RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Yuji KAMITE
- RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- RE: draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-01.txt Maarten.Vissers