Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-l2vpn-evpn-etree-2vlan-00.txt

["Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[e-mail]>]

Jim, Aldrin, Josh:

You guys are spot on. E-VPN solution doesn't have the limitation of
data-plane forwarding that VPLS has and as such it doesn't need addition
vlan-tag to solve root/leaf indication issue as it can be supported
inherently by the solution.

Cheers,
Ali

On 9/22/12 4:34 PM, "UTTARO, JAMES" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Josh,
>
>	Yes.. I think that is the reality of it.. VPLS either the LDP or BGP
>variety uses data plane learning as the mechanism to "learn".. The fact
>that we extend the L2 footprint via these "tunnels" does not change that
>fact.. SO in VPLS the only hammer you have is the data plane, so one must
>manipulate bits on the wire to infer topology ( Limited set of topology
>)..
>
>Another challenge is when roots and leafs "land" on the same PE.
>
>EVPN is intended to use contexts and associated import/export to manage
>the topology.. So here there is a set of tools to create the desired
>topologies, along with that there other mechanisms realized i.e
>active/active...
>
>Jim Uttaro
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>Rogers, Josh
>Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:03 PM
>To: UTTARO, JAMES; Aldrin Isaac; Giles Heron
>Cc: [e-mail]; Jiangyuanlong
>Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
>draft-jiang-l2vpn-evpn-etree-2vlan-00.txt
>
>I agree.
>
>Would it be safe to state that VPLS has a need for a 'etree solution', but
>EVPN does not, because it is inherently supported?
>
>The previously discussed effort of having a 'single etree solution' for
>both VPLS and EVPN may not really be valid due to this.
>
>In fact, I do not think it is valid to ask for a single solution, EVPN
>doesn't have a problem that needs to be fixed here, I don't believe it
>factors into this discussion.
>
>-Josh
>
>
>On 9/22/12 4:56 PM, "UTTARO, JAMES" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>EVPN is intended to maximize the flexibility of multiple routing contexts
>>with arbitrary topologies.. As I have stated in the past, EVPN allows for
>>E-Tree to be constructed in the control plane, other solutions require
>>some method to interrogate data and infer topology. IMO this is not
>>desirable.
>>
>>Jim Uttaro
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>Rogers, Josh
>>Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:49 PM
>>To: Aldrin Isaac; Giles Heron
>>Cc: [e-mail]; Jiangyuanlong
>>Subject: Re: New Version Notification for
>>draft-jiang-l2vpn-evpn-etree-2vlan-00.txt
>>
>>So, this same sort of 'import/export' of targets is possible using
>>BGP-VPLS today, but it faces limitations outlined in
>>draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk, in section 2.  E-VPN would be able to
>>import/export by attachment circuit, and not by PE?  Meaning, AC1 one PE1
>>may import RTA, while AC2 on PE2 may import RTB?
>>
>>Its occurred to me that EVPN would be able to use other mechanisms that
>>have not yet been discussed yet due to sharing a mac table over BGP.
>>
>>Thanks for the response,
>>Josh
>>
>>
>>On 9/22/12 10:28 AM, "Aldrin Isaac" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>In E-VPN an E-tree would be implemented as a hub-and-spoke VPN (like as
>>>in a hub-and-spoke IPVPN, i.e. import RTA export RTB at hubs, import RTB
>>>export RTA at spokes) with filtering to enforce downstream data flow if
>>>desired.  The tree could be built using PIM, mLDP, RSVP, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sep 21, 2012, at 9:09 AM, Giles Heron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Yuanlong,
>>>>
>>>> however I must say that your memory of the IETF 84 L2VPN meeting
>>>>differs from mine (and from what is noted in the minutes).  Whilst
>>>>Himanshu said that it was better to have the same solution for VPLS and
>>>>E-VPN, Ali stated that there was no benefit in the E-VPN case in using
>>>>an additional tag (such as a VLAN).  No consensus was reached in the
>>>>meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Giles
>>>>
>>>> On 21 Sep 2012, at 10:16, Jiangyuanlong <[e-mail]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> During the 84th IETF meeting, the group discussed the issue of E-Tree
>>>>>in E-VPN, and it was shown that a single solution was more preferred
>>>>>than two different approaches for VPLS and E-VPN.
>>>>> This I-D probes how the 2VLAN approach can be used to support E-Tree
>>>>>in E-VPN and it seems not a big issue.
>>>>> Any comments from you are greatly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Yuanlong
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 4:55 PM
>>>>> To: Jiangyuanlong
>>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>>>>draft-jiang-l2vpn-evpn-etree-2vlan-00.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-jiang-l2vpn-evpn-etree-2vlan-00.txt
>>>>> has been successfully submitted by Yuanlong Jiang and posted to the
>>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> Filename:    draft-jiang-l2vpn-evpn-etree-2vlan
>>>>> Revision:    00
>>>>> Title:               E-Tree Support with 2VLAN in E-VPN
>>>>> Creation date:       2012-09-21
>>>>> WG ID:               Individual Submission
>>>>> Number of pages: 6
>>>>> URL:
>>>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-l2vpn-evpn-etree-2vlan
>>>>>-
>>>>>0
>>>>>0.txt
>>>>> Status:
>>>>>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-l2vpn-evpn-etree-2vlan
>>>>> Htmlized:
>>>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-l2vpn-evpn-etree-2vlan-00
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>  This document discusses how the Dual-VLAN approach as described in
>>>>>  [Etree-vlan] can be used to support the transport of E-Tree service
>>>>>  in E-VPN. Thus a single convergent solution is possible for both
>>>>>VPLS
>>>>>  and E-VPN.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>>proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
>>copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
>>for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
>>are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
>>that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in
>>relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly
>>prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in
>>error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the
>>original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>
>
>This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
>copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
>for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
>are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
>that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in
>relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly
>prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in
>error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the
>original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.