RE: L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 16
"Sam Cao" <yuqun.cao@gmail.com> Sun, 15 April 2012 12:05 UTC
Return-Path: <yuqun.cao@gmail.com>
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 66A0521F8712 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
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, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6HGhYTcnwQ42 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D66321F86F9 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrp16 with SMTP id rp16so3278148pbb.31 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index :x-mimeole:in-reply-to; bh=iSdAVpKozqU4kjJ/EwHIcZpju8ZJiNyWoYKysPA78VU=; b=Oten6vqPlbp7KXNDbgkKQXP6jO1jnVoUuOzQkShLX8jsoAm41SAKuTsLez54cGgff/ o3QVnAPR0zmJUiroKk4OuOAJP4wHTn9Jhi931mP1hqoooVjWxOtDmdToBe1YFyg0s0Xy S0D85vG/9c0/Mkekq+Sc9G4KQcmZ2alVC97u6FpzT44CkNIcpflryY8MF7UXa6gpVZbP w6pbWkwIYC+NLecYK5KGFnE5ZH4qbScgO6FGwhG8HX3Tr+WfLkgAT4lBelxfTKJ82YvM SAscIWgUZsjF3HuuYVw49yFVxwil8mKC5GqKol8q/hYA9JMqAZxiM5XO9fBdfQe18sVn ZC+A==
Received: by 10.68.218.198 with SMTP id pi6mr16831204pbc.121.1334491533279; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from v2comsam ([175.42.35.87]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id st4sm14555385pbc.51.2012.04.15.05.05.26 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sam Cao <yuqun.cao@gmail.com>
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
References: <mailman.5.1334257202.29426.l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 16
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:05:18 +0800
Message-ID: <108FBD7F1B8A416F9B8A17BA54AD088F@v2comsam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
thread-index: Ac0Y3n6i2LC54OipTtOKVLbetSY0IgCGVn5w
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
In-Reply-To: <mailman.5.1334257202.29426.l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:05:35 -0000
Hi all, 1) Is there any update on global VLAN-ID allocation for Dual-VLAN? I can not find any update on this. 2) The highlight of Dual-VLAN is, it supports eth-only network (from Wim). But I can not find such requirement in MEF 22.1 and other documents. Is this real requirement from carriers? 3) Dual-VLAN should strip VLAN-ID out after decapsulation on egress PE, but multi-PW seems simpler. In addition, if thinking of backward compatibility (there is legacy PE in E-Tree domain), shall we need one patch in Dual-VLAN approach? I guess we have to. Regards, Yuqun (Sam) Cao E-mail: Yuqun.cao@gmail.com -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of l2vpn-request@ietf.org Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 3:00 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 16 If you have received this digest without all the individual message attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list subscription. To do so, go to https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. Send L2vpn mailing list submissions to l2vpn@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to l2vpn-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at l2vpn-owner@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of L2vpn digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution? (Giles Heron) 2. Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution? (Henderickx, Wim (Wim)) 3. Fwd: Re: IPR Disclosure: Alcatel-Lucent's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19 (Stewart Bryant) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:22:08 +0100 From: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com> To: Simon Delord <simon.delord@gmail.com>, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, Vladimir Kleiner <Vladimir.Kleiner@ecitele.com>, Andrew Sergeev <Andrew.Sergeev@ecitele.com>, Idan Kaspit <Idan.Kaspit@ecitele.com>, Mishael Wexler <Mishael.Wexler@ecitele.com>, Rotem Cohen <Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com> Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution? Message-ID: <CBAC3320.193DE%giles.heron@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sorry - the "anonymous presentation" was mine. I should possibly have put in a third column on the CW approach. And hopefully the minutes will be posted soon. We had various discussions, as Simon stated, and consensus seemed to be forming around the two alternatives of two PWEs or two VLANs. I believe three of the authors of the CW approach are also authors of the two VLAN approach and one is also an author of the two PWE approach. So perhaps it's best to let those four individuals say which approach they prefer and why? Giles On 10/04/2012 00:45, "Simon Delord" <simon.delord@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > You are right, no discussion on the WG mailing list recently, but there > have been substantial discussions among the authors of various solution > drafts off the mailing list. As far as I know, no consensus yet before > ietf83, not sure the progress in the Paris WG meeting. I think the CW > approach has not been rejected by the WG yet, or the WG has not yet decided > on which one to adopt. > > Simon > > 2012/4/8 Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> > >> Hi all, >> >> Unfortunately I have not been able to attend the Paris IETF. >> >> However, looking up the L2VPN proceedings, I've found a short anonymous >> presentation called "E-Tree Update" ( >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-l2vpn-1.pptx). This >> presentation discusses the differences of the E-Tree approaches based on >> dedicated VLANs (as in >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cao-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_text=1) >> and multiple PWs between the PEs (as in >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ram-l2vpn-etree-multiple-pw/?include_t e >> xt=1) >> and completely ignores the solution based on usage of the CW in the PWs >> connecting the PEs (as in >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_text=1 >> ). >> >> >> >> The Minutes of the Paris L2VPN session are not yet available, but I wonder >> whether the WG has taken a decision to reject the approach based on the CW >> usage? I do not remember any recent discussion of this topic on the WG >> mailing list. >> >> >> >> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, >> >> Sasha >> >> >> >> >> >> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains >> information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI >> Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us >> by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies >> thereof. >> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:02:49 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com> To: "'giles.heron@gmail.com'" <giles.heron@gmail.com>, "'simon.delord@gmail.com'" <simon.delord@gmail.com>, "'Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com'" <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Cc: "'l2vpn@ietf.org'" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, "'Vladimir.Kleiner@ecitele.com'" <Vladimir.Kleiner@ecitele.com>, "'Andrew.Sergeev@ecitele.com'" <Andrew.Sergeev@ecitele.com>, "'Idan.Kaspit@ecitele.com'" <Idan.Kaspit@ecitele.com>, "'Mishael.Wexler@ecitele.com'" <Mishael.Wexler@ecitele.com>, "'Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com'" <Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com> Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution? Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67E6673E75@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent .com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" The vlan approach is superior as it also works for eth only networks, etc. On top some vendors indicate hw issues with the cw approach. As such we have dropped more or less the cw approach. Cheers, Wim _________________ sent from blackberry ----- Original Message ----- From: Giles Heron [mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 08:22 AM To: Simon Delord <simon.delord@gmail.com>; Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Vladimir Kleiner <Vladimir.Kleiner@ecitele.com>; Andrew Sergeev <Andrew.Sergeev@ecitele.com>; Idan Kaspit <Idan.Kaspit@ecitele.com>; Mishael Wexler <Mishael.Wexler@ecitele.com>; Rotem Cohen <Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com> Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution? Sorry - the "anonymous presentation" was mine. I should possibly have put in a third column on the CW approach. And hopefully the minutes will be posted soon. We had various discussions, as Simon stated, and consensus seemed to be forming around the two alternatives of two PWEs or two VLANs. I believe three of the authors of the CW approach are also authors of the two VLAN approach and one is also an author of the two PWE approach. So perhaps it's best to let those four individuals say which approach they prefer and why? Giles On 10/04/2012 00:45, "Simon Delord" <simon.delord@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > You are right, no discussion on the WG mailing list recently, but there > have been substantial discussions among the authors of various solution > drafts off the mailing list. As far as I know, no consensus yet before > ietf83, not sure the progress in the Paris WG meeting. I think the CW > approach has not been rejected by the WG yet, or the WG has not yet decided > on which one to adopt. > > Simon > > 2012/4/8 Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> > >> Hi all, >> >> Unfortunately I have not been able to attend the Paris IETF. >> >> However, looking up the L2VPN proceedings, I've found a short anonymous >> presentation called "E-Tree Update" ( >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-l2vpn-1.pptx). This >> presentation discusses the differences of the E-Tree approaches based on >> dedicated VLANs (as in >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cao-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_text=1) >> and multiple PWs between the PEs (as in >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ram-l2vpn-etree-multiple-pw/?include_t e >> xt=1) >> and completely ignores the solution based on usage of the CW in the PWs >> connecting the PEs (as in >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_text=1 >> ). >> >> >> >> The Minutes of the Paris L2VPN session are not yet available, but I wonder >> whether the WG has taken a decision to reject the approach based on the CW >> usage? I do not remember any recent discussion of this topic on the WG >> mailing list. >> >> >> >> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, >> >> Sasha >> >> >> >> >> >> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains >> information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI >> Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us >> by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies >> thereof. >> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:57:13 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> To: IETF-IESG-Support via RT <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, "l2vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <l2vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation@tools.ietf.org, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Fwd: Re: IPR Disclosure: Alcatel-Lucent's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19 Message-ID: <4F871779.8050006@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" IESG Secretary In view of this late IPR disclosure, please initiate a new IETF Last Call on this draft. RFC Editor Please hold publication until the Last Call completes and I indicate that there is IETF consensus to proceed. Thanks Stewart -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: IPR Disclosure: Alcatel-Lucent's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-19 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:19:58 -0400 From: Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> To: IETF Secretariat <ietf-ipr@ietf.org> CC: hshah@ciena.com, giheron@cisco.com, vach.kompella@alcatel-lucent.com, erosen@cisco.com, l2vpn@ietf.org, ipr-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com, andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com IPv6 support for ARP mediation was added in draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-08, dated July 2007. The text of the patent directly refers to revision -09 of the draft, and at least one of the authors is an IETF regular. The patent was filed in January 2009 and awarded in May 2011. Why is it just being disclosed now? Thanks, Andy On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:12 AM, IETF Secretariat<ietf-ipr@ietf.org> wrote: > > Dear Himanshu C. Shah, Giles Heron, Vach Kompella, Eric Rosen: > > An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "ARP Mediation > for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN" (draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation) was > submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-03-29 and has been posted on the "IETF > Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1738/). The title of the IPR disclosure is > "Alcatel-Lucent's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp- > mediation-19.""); > > The IETF Secretariat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/attachments/20120412/7c64d5d3/at tachment.htm> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ L2vpn mailing list L2vpn@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn End of L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 16 *************************************