RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[Thomas Morin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Maria,

NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS :
> 
> >  --> PE scalability is certainly a requirement common to all
> operators
> >      interested in mVPN. It isn't new, and is already explicitly
> >      expressed in RFC4834. Your statement, based on a large 
> >deployment,
> >      confirms that current solutions based on draft-rosen are not
> >      satisfying. This is 100% in line with the analysis in
> >      draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations which concludes that mVPN
> >      routing with the PIM LAN procedures is not the most efficient 
> >      architecture for PE scalability.
> 
> This is not about PE-PE PIM scaling. This is about CE-PE PIM scaling. 
>
> >The solution you suggest: "a solution such as PIM-BiDir [...]"
> >
> >  -> this statement is technically quite vague, but the helpful
> >  interpretation provided by Ice indicates that you favor the 
> >  MS-PMSI approach 
> 
> It is not vague. It is asking for PIM-Bidir support in MVPN context.
> This is nothing to do with favoring MS-PMSI approach. MS-PMSI is just
> one of possible approaches to support Bidir.

(Sorry for misinterpreting, I got mislead by Ice comment wrt. MS-PMSI.)

But, well, then how was the comment related to adopting/not adopting 
draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations ?

( The draft is in no way precluding any further work for PE-CE scaling
and certainly does not make any recommandation against the use of
Bidir-PIM... )

-Thomas



> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> >On Behalf
> >> Of Marshall Eubanks
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:04 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Cc: Ross Callon
> >> Subject: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts 
> >> 
> >> This email starts a 3 week call for input, to expire October 
> >23, 2008,  
> >> for the following steps:
> >> 
> >> 1.) To accept draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03 as a working
> >> group document;  and
> >> 
> >> 2.) To turn this document into a requirements draft, with 
> >mandatory to
> >> implement features for an interoperable implementation. The authors
> >> have indicated that they are willing to do this.
> >> 
> >> Our intention is, if this approach is accepted, to then begin WG last
> >> call to submit to the IESG for publication:
> >> 
> >> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast
> >> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp
> >> 
> >> We expect that these two documents will be submitted more or 
> >less as is
> >> (i.e., certainly with any new bug fixes or other necessary 
> >corrections  
> >> and
> >> improvements, but without specific mandatory to implement feature
> >> description in those drafts).
> >> 
> >> Please respond to the list with your recommendations for these two
> >> courses of action.
> >> 
> >> Regards
> >> Marshall & Danny
> >> 
> >
> >