RE: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions
Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.com> Thu, 02 October 2003 15:23 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26069 for <l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:23:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A55Hs-00065v-Kh for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:22:46 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h92FMesO023423 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:22:40 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A55Hs-00065i-ET for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:22:40 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26049 for <l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:22:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A55HF-00060J-A0; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:22:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A55GH-0005tw-RR for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:21:01 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA25955 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A55GG-00027r-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:21:00 -0400
Received: from [80.74.100.67] (helo=antivir2) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A55GC-00026Z-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:20:57 -0400
Received: from 192.168.254.14 by antivir2 (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:19:57 +0200
Received: by TLV1 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <S4ZMDVZD>; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:11:47 +0200
Message-ID: <AF5018AC03D1D411ABB70002A5091326D31729@TLV1>
From: Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.com>
To: 'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.se>
Cc: Vach Kompella <vach.kompella@alcatel.com>, Rick Wilder <rick@rhwilder.net>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 18:11:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-8"
Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <l2vpn.ietf.org>
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>
Loa and all, May I ask why the directory-based VPLS approach (proposed by Juha Heinanen) has been left out of even the initial list? With best regards, Sasha Vainshtein email: sasha@axerra.com <mailto:sasha@axerra.com> tel: +972-3-7659993 (office) +972-8-9254948 (res.) +972-58-674833 (cell.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 5:09 PM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: Vach Kompella; Rick Wilder; Thomas Narten > Subject: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions > > > > L2VPN Working group consensus statement on VPLS solutions. > > There has been a debate for some time about which and how many VPLS > solutions should be progressed in the L2VPN WG. This started > back in the > PPVPN and several suggestions > on how to go forward have been offered. > > Vpls solutions submitted to the WG include: > > a. CE-based Virtual Private LAN > <draft-lee-ce-based-vpl-02.txt> > > b. GVPLS/LPE - Generalized VPLS Solution based on LPE Framework > <draft-radoaca-ppvpn-gvpls-02.txt> > > c. Virtual Private LAN Service > <draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-00.txt> > > d. Virtual Private LAN Services over MPLS > <draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-00.txt> > > The CE-based solution is not included in the working group charter. > > Of the remaining three proposals all three are within charter and > they specify similar functionality. Opinions on how the WG should > proceed with these proposals, however, differ widely. There is a > smaller group that says "Yes, lets do everything!", groups that > are very much in favor one particular solutions, and a group that > says "Lets take the two most popular and bring them to the market > and let the market decide!" > > We have discussed how to define working group consensus and find > a way forward, that is acceptable both for the working group and > for the IETF as a standards organization. > > These are our conclusions: > > > The generalized (b) solution has only weak support as has been > documented in the working group meetings and on the mailing list. > We will not progress this solution further. However, there are > interesting parts of the solution that, e.g. the discussion on > scaling, so we recommend that the authors work with authors of > the other solutions to capture these parts of (b) in other solutions > documents or to publish this material as IDs in their own right. > > The bgp (c) and ldp (d) proposals have such support that under > "normal circumstances" (i.e. no competing proposal) they would have > been accepted as working group documents and rapidly progressed to > Proposed Standard. Both are implemented and deployed. > > The functional difference between (c) and (d) is not large, > however they have taken their starting point in two different > networking scenarios. (c) is mostly directed towards networks > based on routers that run a full suite of the Internet Protocols, > while (d) takes as a starting point that it shall be possible to > run also on equipment that do not have all those protocols available > or deployable. We have therefore decided that there is enough support > in the WG for each of these two solutions and enough of a > delta between them that the working group should progress > both solutions > to proposed standard. > > > In summary, the L2VPN working group co-chairs finds: > > - that "CE-based Virtual Private LAN" on one side has very little > support and on the other is not within charter, and will therfor > not be considered as an option for the working group vpls > solution. > > - that the "GVPLS/LPE - Generalized VPLS Solution based on LPE > Framework" has not enough support in the working group to be > a candidate for a working group solutions on the vpls > > - that there are interesting parts and discussion within this > draft that should be captured and either incorporated in the > working group vpls solution(s) or released as an ID in its own > right > > - that both "Virtual Private LAN Service (c) and "Virtual Private LAN > Services over MPLS" (d) has enough support to be progressed > towards Proposed Standard in their own right > > - that there is a networking scenario delta that motivates the > differences between these two solutions > > > Vach Rick Loa > > > -- > Loa Andersson > > Mobile +46 739 81 21 64 > Email loa@pi.se > > >
- consensus stattement on vpsl solutions Loa Andersson
- RE: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions Sasha Vainshtein
- Re: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions Kireeti Kompella
- Re: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions Loa Andersson
- RE: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions Sasha Vainshtein
- RE: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions Vach Kompella
- RE: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions Tissa Senevirathne
- Re: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions W. Mark Townsley
- RE: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions Juha Heinanen
- Re: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions Wei Luo
- Re: consensus stattement on vpls solutions Loa Andersson