IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Representation of VPLS attachment circuits in the VPLS MIB draft

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Mon, 19 May 2014 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85ADE1A037A for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PMVWSiZ2BZag for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emea01-db3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db3lp0084.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 097F71A037F for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2014 06:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.110.144) by AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.110.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.944.11; Mon, 19 May 2014 13:09:26 +0000
Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) by AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0944.000; Mon, 19 May 2014 13:09:26 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: "tnadeau@lucidvision.com" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, "kkoushik@cisco.com" <kkoushik@cisco.com>, "rohit.mediratta@alcatel-lucent.com" <rohit.mediratta@alcatel-lucent.com>
Subject: RE: Representation of VPLS attachment circuits in the VPLS MIB draft
Thread-Topic: Representation of VPLS attachment circuits in the VPLS MIB draft
Thread-Index: Ac9zRXZtGaEhhrgKQHa1aq4D/fY9OAAHKXlAAABWa+A=
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:09:25 +0000
Message-ID: <e402f6af93a14d409c1054587b771d3f@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <474c07eb20a84773a9d51a6281af5fa2@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <474c07eb20a84773a9d51a6281af5fa2@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.56.21]
x-forefront-prvs: 021670B4D2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(428001)(252514010)(51694002)(377454003)(53754006)(189002)(199002)(74502001)(16236675002)(74662001)(19580395003)(19609705001)(76482001)(86362001)(15975445006)(83322001)(19580405001)(19300405004)(21056001)(101416001)(4396001)(31966008)(92566001)(76576001)(81342001)(74316001)(99396002)(81542001)(87936001)(64706001)(20776003)(66066001)(2656002)(83072002)(80022001)(77096999)(46102001)(19625215002)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999)(85852003)(15202345003)(77982001)(33646001)(2201001)(79102001)(24736002)(217873001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR03MB612; H:AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e402f6af93a14d409c1054587b771d3fAM3PR03MB612eurprd03pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/d9no5eB77m8IoV91NbcBAarLNrg
Cc: "'l2vpn@ietf.org'" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, Rotem Cohen <Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com>
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <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: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:09:33 -0000

Resending - received some "undeliverable" messages...

Regards,
       Sasha
Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
Mobile: 054-9266302

From: L2vpn [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 4:05 PM
To: tnadeau@lucidvision.com; kkoushik@cisco.com; rohit.mediratta@alcatel-lucent.com
Cc: 'l2vpn@ietf.org'.org'; Rotem Cohen
Subject: RE: Representation of VPLS attachment circuits in the VPLS MIB draft

Hi all,

Just wanted to add that in the case of L3 VPNs the corresponding MIB (RFC 4382<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4382/?include_text=1>) addresses the similar question in an unambiguous manner by introducing the mplsL3VpnIfConfTable.


It would be interesting to know why the same approach has not been taken with VPLS ACs.
My 2c,
       Sasha
Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Mobile: 054-9266302

From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 12:34 PM
To: 'tnadeau@lucidvision.com'.com'; 'kkoushik@cisco.com'.com'; 'rohit.mediratta@alcatel-lucent.com'
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>; Gideon Agmon; Rotem Cohen (Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com<mailto:Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com>)
Subject: Representation of VPLS attachment circuits in the VPLS MIB draft

Hi all,
I've looked up the current version of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib/?include_text=1> and I did not find there any explicit reference to (local) attachment circuits of VPLS. (Neither the term "attachment circuit" nor its common abbreviation "AC" appear in the text.)

At the same time, to the best of my understanding, attachment circuits form a substantial component of any VPLS instance.

Did I miss something?

If yes, could somebody please explain how one could indicate that, say, a specific VLAN on a specific Ethernet port belongs to a given VPLS instance as defined in the draft?

If not, could somebody please explain why presenting such functionality is considered unnecessary in the VPLS MIB?

Regards, lots of thanks in advance,
       Sasha
Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Mobile: 054-9266302

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email