IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [L3sm] Comments on draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model

Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.kompella@gmail.com> Wed, 22 July 2015 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <kireeti.kompella@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F041B2EE0 for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 hK98A-Wvt2iF for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 207E51B2EDF for <l3sm@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so191596294wib.0 for <l3sm@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=b1cgdVKhkbEBaFW/4PDR33nrybHcJq3n0uGzwG3BFU8=; b=O0mrppdCku7ZDOWySLwThIPD0CRMvpUbUGHGAWcDyjg+Pog4Y+YiMcWFSuwTRsHmXZ xySLGtwUoDANdmHjAEUbbiXyJzwp24oD8npAujyv7q02RDjkhyDm3G9P1h2C2hIF9Ded uMBhUnqLsSf0kis7Qnq51kZpxe839bKDZETFkhX9RqSaNvsniqTc2gGmpwPYQdRed4MV 3e/kfFuwX92riedWLcWN4Ez5CKPvGi8ZOdYwSZ70YPPIw8cPCuKQbd/kVd7u39kOxagP T3fkyIzp7NLhgiVuBGbGjM3iEzURB5PoUuMBLqEiMLkl2zl+2BX48Vk53aMKKWcglgd5 uRsA==
X-Received: by 10.180.109.136 with SMTP id hs8mr10269018wib.73.1437600919905; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [31.133.139.2] ([31.133.139.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ex8sm4285466wjc.34.2015.07.22.14.35.18 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Jul 2015 14:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.kompella@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B466)
In-Reply-To: <55AFE9C4.5070704@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:35:17 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <21D1A456-17E3-478C-8CFE-B07D2D106A71@gmail.com>
References: <4B3B6546-2150-4EFB-B580-587A9EAD1E82@gmail.com> <55AFE9C4.5070704@juniper.net>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/cmAjjNNpuwYRtwGHrBAiH9psiV8>
Cc: "<l3sm@ietf.org>" <l3sm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [L3sm] Comments on draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model
X-BeenThere: l3sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: L3VPN Service YANG Model discussion group <l3sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l3sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l3sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:35:22 -0000

On Jul 22, 2015, at 21:06, Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net> wrote:

Agree that there should be hints about RD assignment policy (unless it's always per-VRF :)). 

I won't comment on RTs. 

> Changing the topic, I have a question about the multicast service model.  Some PE products allow the SP to offer a Rendezvous Point service to their MVPN customers.  

l3vpn/vpn-svc/multicast/rp allows specifying RP's IP address. 

> Some allow the SP to offer IGMP/MLD service to their MVPN customers, others only allow the SP to offer a PIM peering service.

Should these be added to
sites/attachment/connection/routing-protocols ?

> Changing the topic again, don't SPs often place limitations on the number of routes (or the rate of route change) per VRF for either unicast or multicast routes or both?  I didn't notice anything about that in the SM; is that something that the SM should capture?

sites/maximum-routes

Has an af -- so, should handle both unicast and multicast. No such variable VPN-wide, though. 

Rate of change not captured, afaict. 

Kireeti

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email