Re: [L3sm] [l3sm] #20 (draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model): Placement of the management branch

["Landry, Jean-Philippe" <[e-mail]>]

You are correct to point out this recommendation is directly related same use case as ticket 15, which is CE diversity at a multi-homed site. 

However I would like to point out that unlike ticket 15, this is not addressable via augmentation of the diversity constraints list. In a configuration such as depicted in section 5.6 of the model, it would be impossible to specify the management parameter of each of the individual CEs of the HUB sites since  only one management block is allowed per  site.

Here is this diagram as it stands in V12 for your reading convenience:

Hub#1 LAN (Primary/backup)          Hub#2 LAN (Loadsharing)
     |                                                  |
     |     access-priority 1       access-priority 1    |
     |--- CE1 ------- PE1         PE3 --------- CE3 --- |
     |                                                  |
     |                                                  |
     |--- CE2 ------- PE2         PE4 --------- CE4 --- |
     |     access-priority 2       access-priority 1    |


                             PE5
                              |
                              |
                              |
                             CE5
                              |
                         Spoke#1 site (Single-homed)

Cheers

JPL

________________________ 
Jean-Philippe Landry, Senior Technical Architect/Architecte technique principal,
New Technology Introduction, Bell Canada
1 Alexander-Graham-Bell, E2
Verdun, QC, H3E 3B3
téléphone: [phone] 
<<mailto:[e-mail]>> 
https://session.collaboration.bell.ca/join/krcwz 



-----Original Message-----
From: Ogaki, Kenichi [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 12:35 AM
To: Landry, Jean-Philippe
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [L3sm] [l3sm] #20 (draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model): Placement of the management branch

Hi,

Same comment to issue#15.

All the best,
Kenichi

-----Original Message-----
From: L3sm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of l3sm issue tracker
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 7:16 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [L3sm] [l3sm] #20 (draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model): Placement of the management branch

#20: Placement of the management branch

 The following branch (for the CE management) is currently placed under the site branch.

 +--rw management
 | +--rw type? identityref
 | +--rw management-transport? identityref
 | +--rw address? inet:ip-address

 This is problematic for multi CE multi homed sites.

 Recommending to move this branch under the site-network-access branch.

 While this has the potential to lead to redundant or conflicting data accros multiple network accesses connected to the same CE, this is necessary for multi-CE sites.

 Suggestion to avoid redundant or conflictual management info accross same CE network accesses would be to make the branch optional and impose on the management solution to specify the management data on at least one of the network access connected to any one CE (presumably the first network access to be installed or the primary network access).

-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+---
 Reporter: [e-mail]   |  Owner: draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-
  Type: defect     | [e-mail]
 Priority: major     |  Status: new
Component: draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn- | Milestone:
 service-model      | Version:
 Severity: -      | Keywords:
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+---

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/l3sm/trac/ticket/20>
l3sm <https://tools.ietf.org/l3sm/>

_______________________________________________
L3sm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm