RE: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn signalling draftprovisionong methods.
"Florin Balus" <balus@nortel.com> Tue, 06 December 2005 16:38 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjfqD-0005S9-GG; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:38:57 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjfqC-0005Ri-CZ for l2vpn@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:38:56 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21425 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:38:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from zrtps0kp.nortelnetworks.com ([47.140.192.56]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EjgBi-00009U-VE for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:01:11 -0500
Received: from zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.129.230.97]) by zrtps0kp.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id jB6GXWR16824; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:33:32 -0500 (EST)
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, 06 Dec 2005 11:33:30 -0500
Message-ID: <9671A92C3C8B5744BC97F855F7CB64650758A61D@zcarhxm1.corp.nortel.com>
Thread-Topic: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn signalling draftprovisionong methods.
Thread-Index: AcX5wPDb+xRYswI2Q+K4FT+lXAMriwAUtQtg
X-Message-Flag: Follow up
From: Florin Balus <balus@nortel.com>
To: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8068004c042dabd7f1301bcc80e039df
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: L2VPN <l2vpn@ietf.org>, David McDysan <dave.mcdysan@mci.com>, Mustapha Aissaoui <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel.com>, bsd@cisco.com
Subject: RE: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn signalling draftprovisionong methods.
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
Luca, It looks like we are making progress here. Let me summarize what I understood from your follow up: - you are acknowledging that VPLS/VPWS might use either one or a combination of both MS and SS-PWs to interconnect their VSIs/VFs associated with their pools? - in your view AII type 1 and implicitly the (AGI, 32 bit AII) addressing scheme solves in the simplest way the provisioning model for VPLS/VPWS based on <BGP> Autodiscovery of the endpoints? Can you confirm my summary? I am happy with the first part. For the second part we should also note there are a good chunk of L2VPNs (all currently deployed LDP-VPLS) provisioning models where no AD is used/available. In my opinion, AII type 2 is a must in these scenarios whenever at least one MS-PW is involved. That is the first reason for saying that there is not a clear delineation - AII type 1 for L2VPNs, type 2 for Individual MS-PWs. On the other hand, I agree that until a new scheme for AD-based provisioning model is described, the one described in L2VPN Signaling is the only one available. Still I still think what is happening during the <BGP> AD process does not dictate what is included in the fields used for PW Signaling phase. Furthermore before closing on where each AII type should be used, I think we should spend some time looking into options to streamline the BGP AD procedures for the generalized case (where either a MS/SS-PW may be used for L2VPNs). See also in-line... Thanks, Florin >-----Original Message----- >From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com] >Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:26 PM >To: Balus, Florin [CAR:6955:EXCH] >Cc: Mustapha Aissaoui; L2VPN; David McDysan; bsd@cisco.com >Subject: Re: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn >signalling draftprovisionong methods. > > >Florin, > >Florin Balus wrote: >> I agree with Mustapha's proposal: we should just deprecate >AII type 1 >> before people start implementing it. All its functionality could be >> easily reproduced if need be using AII type 2: just set >Global ID and >> Prefix fields to zero. L2VPN Signaling itself proposes a similar >> >Prefixing the fields to 0 just means that you really have >encoded a new >AII type , but you are hiding it. Is that a problem? Isn't the same thing proposed for BGP Autodiscovery in L2VPN Signaling: all the NLRI fields from BGP VPLS SAFI are set to zero except a 32 bits one... In any case I just mentioned the above option (set Global ID, Prefix fields to zero) as a posibility. I don't really see a problem to include the real values for the Global ID and Prefix fields when signaling any PW, regardless of whether it connects VSIs/Pools/VFs, or whether it is SS/MS type. >What happens when a new provisioning model comes along ? do we put all >the fields to 0xffff ? I was speaking about the well known L2VPN models we are aware of: i.e. individual VCs, VPWS, VPLS. Provisioned or autodiscovered. I am saying that in all three of them you can use nicely an AII type 2 to signal the PW building blocks, without worrying whether it is a SS/MS-PW. As per my first in-line note, I think it's actually a good idea to include for all of them Global ID and Prefix field. The AC ID is the only field that needs to be set to 0 only for non-distributed VPLS. > >> approach for the 32 bits field associated with AII type 1 when it >> comes to BGP auto-discovery: i.e. just re-use 32 bits from the NLRI >> for BGP VPLS SAFI and set the other unnecessary fields to zero... >> >> Note that AII type 2 will be required for L2VPN addressing: all the >> Use Cases (e.g. MAN-WAN, Inter-provider, Scalability, private PE >> addressing) described in MS-PW requirements draft apply also for >> L2VPNs (PWs being used as infrastructure). >> >> So there won't be a clear cut between the 2 cases outlined by Luca >> below: there will be plenty of scenarios where 2 VSIs (VPLS)/Pools >> (VPWS) will need to be connected via a MS-PW. >> >> >Yes , and this case is handled properly in the l2vpn-signaling >draft. For VPLS the PW-Switching point PE is a BGP speaker, >hence it can >advertise the VPLS with itself as a next hop. This will initiate the >MS-PW segments correctly through the S-PE ( basically , the >BGP speaker >itself ) > See my reply in the summary (for the second part)... > >> Moreover there will be cases where the same PE will have to connect >> its VSI to remote ones using both SS and MS-PWs. How does the PE >> choose when to use one AII type versus the other? Definitely that >> should not happen based on whether the PW goes one hop or multiple >> hops. >> >> >there is no need to choose. In this case , the BGP message contains 2 >piece of information: "please setup a PW to myself" , and " >here is the >VSI you should connect the PW to" I understand and agree with the AD description in L2VPN Signaling. But then during the Signaling step, what stops us from putting "myself" info in the AII type 2 fields? > >This is very different from the MS-PW BGP message that simply >says "you >can reach this PW AC address here" . > >> Everybody will require sooner or later support for MS-PWs. >So I think >> it's a good idea to put in place early in the L2 build up, the L2 >> addressing that will easily accommodate the MS-PW expansion >instead of >> trying to live with 2 addressing plans: one unique per AGI (AII type >> 1), one globally unique (AII type 2). >> >> Focusing on one addressing format will maximize also >technology re-use >> (MS/SS-PWs transparently applicable to Individual VCs, VPWS, >VPLS) and >> will avoid interoperability issues between vendors and SPs. >> >> >The reason we had an AII type field is to allow different provisioning >schemes ... >what would be the point to have only one AII type ? > Yes I agree as long as it is clear that one can't do it easily with existing ones. >Although I think this is fairly complicated, keeping the AII type 1 as >is , ( which is used in a different context ) does not preclude any of >the MS-PW technology from being used. >On the contrary , only using AII type 2 , precludes the autodiscovery >methodology described in the l2vpn-signaling draft, >unless most fields are set to 0 >which gets us right back to AII type 1. I would just say here that we should spend more time discussing options before reaching a conclusion. > >Thanks. >Luca > > >> Regards, >> Florin >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Mustapha Aissaoui >>> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:58 PM >>> To: 'Luca Martini'; 'L2VPN' >>> Cc: 'David McDysan'; bsd@cisco.com >>> Subject: RE: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn >>> signalling draftprovisionong methods. >>> >>> >>> Luca, >>> I do not believe there is any substantial difference that >warrants to >>> standardize two different AII types. A MS-PW can also >terminate on a >>> VSI, e.g., VPLS. >>> >>> The issue is to be able to encode the target termination >>> interface: an endpoint for a p2p PW or a VSI for a VPLS in a way >>> such that it will work for both single hop PWs and MS-PWs. Both >>> types can be used for the various L2VPN applications. >>> >>> Pragmatically, the way to go is to deprecate the FEC 129 as defined >>> in draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-06.txt (Type 1) and extend the Type 2 >>> to cover the various applications. One other reason to >deprecate Type >>> 1 is that we do not want an implementation to use different FEC 129 >>> types for single-hop PW and MS-PW. FEC 128 will be restricted to >>> singe hop PW and will be fine as long as we specify a way to reach >>> U-PEs which are on a FEC 129 Type 2 network. >>> >>> Mustapha. >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Luca Martini >>> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:09 PM >>> To: L2VPN >>> Cc: David McDysan; bsd@cisco.com >>> Subject: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn >>> signalling draft provisionong methods. >>> >>> WG, >>> >>> After a good discussion with Bruce Davie, we came up with the >>> following explanation on why we need to have different AII type int >>> he PW setup and maintenance protocol. This note explains why >>> draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-06.txt (the L2VPN Signaling draft) and >>> draft-balus-bocci-martini-dyn-ms-pwe3-00.txt (the MS PW >>> draft) make use of different AII types, as defined in >>> draft-metz-aii-aggregate-01.txt. In a nutshell, the two >>> drafts use different AII types because they are tackling >>> different problems. Specifically, L2VPN Signaling draft is >>> concerned with setting up all the PWs for a given L2VPN, while >>> the MS PW draft is concerned with setting up individual PWs. >>> Because it is concerned with building L2VPNs, the L2VPN >>> Signaling draft makes use of the AGI (the contents of which >>> effectively identify the >>> VPN) plus the AII to identify a particular PW. Hence, the AII >>> only needs to identify a "pool" or a VSI relative to a >>> particular AGI. Hence a simple 32 bit AII is sufficient. By >>> contrast, because the MS PW draft is concerned with setting up >>> individual PWs, not L2VPNs, it has no use for the AGI - there >>> is no "group" concept. Hence it fully identifies the PW in the >>> AII. Because there may be many PWs connected to a given U-PE >>> device, it is necessary to identify the PWs relative to a >>> given U-PE. And it is necessary to identify the U-PE within >>> the AII so that the signaling message can be routed toward the >>> correct U-PE. Hence the requirements for the AII are quite >>> different, and it makes sense to use an AII type that is >>> designed to meet these requirements. It is obvious that the >>> simple AII type could be encoded in the more complex AII type >>> by leaving various fields set to zero, but this does not seem >>> to serve any useful purpose. >>> >>> Luca >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
- RE: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn … Chris Metz (chmetz)
- RE: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn … Florin Balus
- Re: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn … Luca Martini
- RE: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn … Florin Balus
- Re: AII differences between PW routing and l2vpn … Jixiong Dong