RE: Questions about draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-00

[Ali Sajassi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lionel,
At 09:20 AM 1/12/2005 +0200, [e-mail] wrote:

>Hi Ali,
>
>This response mentions diagrams on page 7 of your IETF presentation. The 
>presentation does not appear to have been posted. Where can it be found?

Here is the pointer to it.
http://www1.ietf.org/proceedings_new/04nov/slides/l2vpn-9.pdf


>I found Section 9.2 of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-05 to be so 
>telegraphically written that I could not follow the details (and I think 
>many other readers are in the same position). Your responses to Peter 
>and  Interoperability Draft fill in some of these details.

I agree with you. The couple of paragraph in the section 9.2 is neither 
enough nor does Justices to treat this topic in reasonable details. As soon 
as I get a chance, I will incorporate some of the stuff that I discussed 
previously into either this draft or a new draft.


>The draft states "On a per P-VLAN basis, the MSTP will designate a single 
>PE-rs to be used for carrying the traffic across the core". Does your 
>diagram help explain that statement?

Not quite but Figure-7 may help somewhat. It shows the model for the PE-rs 
with bridging component and you can think of one those VPLS instances shown 
in the model is for carrying service provider BPDUs among the PE-rs devices 
of the same island. Furthermore, this BPDU VPLS is mapped into BPDU 
untagged traffic of the virtual bridge port. From there on, MSTP operates 
as it should among the provider's PE-rs devices of a given island (e.g., it 
is limited to that island only).


>As a nit, draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-05 should refer to S-VLAN instead of 
>P-VLAN in accordance with the 802.1ad terminology (and 
>draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-00).

Agree.


>I am hoping that your diagrams will clarify some points which still are 
>not clear on these important issues. Expanded drafts are needed.

I agree that we need more detailed description and I will work on it.

-Ali


>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lionel Silman,  System, Optical Networks Division, ECI Telecom
>Tel    Work: [phone]; Home: [phone]
>
>
>Ali Sajassi <[e-mail]>
>Sent by: [e-mail]
>
>18/11/2004 08:38
>
>         To:        "Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)" <[e-mail]>, 
> "'Ali Sajassi'" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>         cc:
>         Subject:        RE: Questions about 
> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-00
>
>Hi Peter,
>
>Please refer to my comments below ...
>
>[snipped]
>
>
> >Unfortunately, I don't fully understand section 9.2 of the vpls-ldp draft.
> >Perhaps you could shed your light on that as well :-)   Section 9.2 
> mentions:
> >
> >"If an island has more than one PE-rs, then a dedicated full-mesh of
> >pseudowires is used among these PE-rs devices for carrying the SP BPDU
> >packets for  that island."
> >
> >What is meant by "dedicated"? Since the PE-rs devices are part of the VPLS
> >network, there is by definition a full mesh of PWs between them. Are the
> >dedicated PWs for SP BDPU packets different PWs than the ones that carry
> >the data traffic?
>
>Exactly. These full-mesh of PWs are dedicated to carry the service
>providers BPDUs only and this full-mesh is for the PE-rs devices of that
>island only and not the whole network. So if the whole network consists of
>5 access islands each of which having three PE-rs devices, then each island
>has a full-mesh of three PWs for its BPDU traffic. And if a VPLS instance
>(for a given customer) spans across all the five islands, then that VPLS
>instance needs a full-mesh of 105 PWs (15*7). The idea of having a separate
>full-mesh of PWs for each island's BPDU traffic is to make each island STP
>independent from every other islands.
>
>
> >Also, would it not be possible that as a result of running MSTP in the
> >P-VPLAN, the VPLS network itself is blocked? E.g. if an MTU-s is connected
> >to both PE1 and PE2 and the resulting spanning tree is such that the link
> >between PE1 and PE2 is blocked (i.e. the MTU-s is the root), then MTU-s
> >will forward packets with unknown MAC address received from PE1 to PE2 and
> >vice versa. Now, if PE1 and PE2 both block all traffic from the VPLS
> >network, the P-VPLAN is isolated from all remote nodes. On the other hand,
> >if PE1 and PE2 both forward traffic over the VPLS network, there is a loop.
>
>This won't happen. The full-mesh of PWs for that islands BPDUs is for the
>virtual bridge port that I draw in the PE model in page 7 of my IETF
>presentation (I have sent my preso to the chairs to be posted). So if you
>take a look at that figure, hopefully things become more clear. When that
>virtual port gets blocked, then all the VPLS instances (or provider VLANs)
>over that port gets blocked as well and therefore, only a single PE-rs will
>be active for any given VPLS instance. Even if there is another link
>between the two PE-rs devices, the MSTP will take care of blocking this
>additional link.
>
>
> >Does a single PW failure in a full-mesh of PWs cause a total interruption
> >of BPDUs? I would think that in a bridge world, every site that
> >participates in a VPLS instance would generate BPDUs. If PE1 stops
> >receiving BDPUs from PE2 due to a PW failure, but if it continues
> >receiving BPDUs from PE3, PE4, etc., why would it change the forwarding 
> state?
>
>There are scenarios with dual-homing of a customer site or redundant
>connection via another network, where a unidirectional failure of PW can
>result in a loop - it would be easier to show these scenarios via figures.
>Also in the scenario that you describe above, because the CE1 connected to
>PE1 doesn't receive BPDUs directly from the CE2 (connected to PE2), then it
>can miscalculate its path to the root and block its link and open up an
>alternative link through another network which is not desirable.
>
>
>
> > > Now in case of a
> > > uni-directional failure
> > > of a PW, if the detection & recovery time for a PW failure is
> > > greater than
> > > twice the BPDU hello time,
> >
> >What is the BPDU hello time?
>
>typically 2 seconds.
>
> > > Let me give you another example: if three customer CEs are
> > > connected via 10
> > > provider bridges (e.g., there are ten bridges in the path of
> > > these three
> > > CEs), then only a single bridge needs to do MAC address learning.
> >
> >
> >I still don't understand. If three CEs are connected to three PEs, don't
> >all three PEs need to participate in MAC address learning?
> >
> >You can avoid any MAC learning in PEs by establishing point-to-point PWs
> >between CEs. However, in a regular VPLS architecture, each PE needs to do
> >MAC learning, right?
>
>Typically yes, all the PEs need to learn MAC addresses but what I am
>talking about is that the MAC address learning can be optimized (per
>802.1ad) such that only the PEs that need to learn MAC addresses, then
>learn MAC addresses. Let me give you another example, if a customer has
>only two CEs connected via a VPLS network, then we can optimized our
>network such that no MAC address learning is needed because the path
>between the two CEs through the network is basically a PtP path. Now if you
>consider three CEs, then there can be only a single Y branch along the path
>between the three CEs and therefore, only the PE with Y branch needs to
>learn MAC address. With this optimization, the question is not if a PE can
>learn customer MAC addresses but whether a PE needs to learn customer MAC
>addresses.
>
>-Ali
>
>
>
> > >
> >[snipped to the end]
>
>
>
>
>