Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00
Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Sun, 22 April 2012 13:32 UTC
Return-Path: <yakov@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9E521F8456 for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.779
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a-+z+HTIr1aw for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A3021F844C for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT5QIYN45oLamUQ2gZMmEpSU3TY6lRhjL@postini.com; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:32:17 PDT
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:32:00 -0700
Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id q3MDVx122253; Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:31:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
Message-ID: <201204221331.q3MDVx122253@magenta.juniper.net>
To: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00
In-Reply-To: <6EABF66C-AF44-49D6-AA8F-728C894ED957@cisco.com>
References: <6EABF66C-AF44-49D6-AA8F-728C894ED957@cisco.com>
X-MH-In-Reply-To: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> message dated "Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:19:25 +0100."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18071.1335101519.1@juniper.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 06:31:59 -0700
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
Cc: L3VPN mailing list <l3vpn@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:32:18 -0000
Ice, > Dear L3VPN, > > We presented draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00 to > the MPLS WG last IETF in Taipei and received a comment that this > should be discussed in L3 VPN. As it looks there is not going to > be a L3VPN meeting in Paris, for that reason I'm sending out this > email to solicit input on this draft. > > This draft describes a solution to be used in a VPN environment, > but it is no t intended to be used as a generic solution for Multicast > VPNs. It is for specific deployments where traffic is bundled in > 'service' VPNs within a Providers n etwork, following similar > procedures and rationale as described in draft-ietf-m > pls-mldp-in-band-signaling-05. These VPNs are not generic customer > VPNs, but used to transport content such as IPTV or financial data > through a Providers network. > > The basic idea is that the ingress PE's VRF RD is added to the mLDP > FEC opaque encoding to make it unique and VPN specific. This follows > the same model as described in draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-04 > section 3. We had a similar discussion regarding the use of the > RD in the opaque encoding and decided to accept it as WG document > in the MPLS WG. > > Some may say this solution does not follow the multicast procedures > as documented in draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10, and for that > reason should not be allowed. > > However, > > 1. This is not any different from draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-04 > section 3. > 2. This draft is driven by customer interest. > 3. This solution relies on existing IP-VPN BGP procedures without > additional extensions. > > For that reason we like to see > draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00 progress as > WG document in the MPLS WG. > > We welcome your feedback, > As you asked for feedback, here are few commends on the draft: 1. The following should be added to Abstract and Introduction: Procedures specified in this draft are not compatible with the standard MVPN procedures, as specified in [RFC6513, RFC6514]. Thus, a PE router that implements procedures specified in this draft would not be able to interoperate with a PE router that implements the standard MVPN procedures. 2. From the draft: For a variety of reasons (discussed in [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast]), this is not a suitable for a general purpose multicast VPN solution. The above is a bit confusing/misleading. The reason why this solution is not suitable for a general purpose multicast VPN solution is that it does not meet some of the mandatory requirements for multicast VPN solution, as stated in rfc4834. With this in mind I would like the authors to replace the above with the following: The solution described in this draft is not suitable for a general purpose multicast VPN solution, as it does not meet multiple mandatory requirements for multicast VPNs specified in [rfc4834], such as (a) scalability, (b) support for MVPN customers running ASM, (c) support for extranets, (d) support for tunneling technologies other than mLDP, etc.. 3. From the draft: But the procedures described herein are much simpler than the general purpose MVPN procedures, This is just a matter of opinion, and as such should be removed from the draft. 4. From the draft: Due to the 1-1 mapping and the multicast source and group information being encoded in the mLDP FEC, there is deterministic mapping beween the multicast tree and the mLDP LSP in the core network. This improves and simplifies fault resolution. There is nothing in the general purpose MVPN procedures that would prevent the same. Thus the same fault resolution could be done with the general purpose MVPN procedures. With this in mind I propose either (a) to delete the above text, or (b) keep the above text, and add the following to the above text: The same fault resolution could be accomplished with the general purpose MVPN procedures. 5. From the draft: In order to use the mLDP in-band signaling procedures for a particular group address in a particular VPN, the Provider Edge (PE) routers that attach to that VPN MUST be configured with a range of multicast group addresses for which mLDP in-band signaling is to be enabled. This configuration is per VRF ("Virtual Routing and Forwarding table", defined in [RFC4364]). For those groups, and those groups only, the procedures of this document are used instead of the general purpose Multicast VPN procedures. This configuration must be present in all PE routers that attach to sites containing senders or receivers for the given set of group addresses. First of all, the document should spell out that configuring on a PE "a range of multicast group addresses for which mLDP in-band signaling is to be enabled" requires coordination between a customer and a service provider. Second, the document needs spell out the procedures for groups that are not in this range. E.g., should traffic to these groups be discarded ? Should this traffic be handled using standard MVPN procedures ? Something else ? 6. As I said before, this draft, as you said above, "describes a solution to be used in a VPN environment". Thus it is outside the scope of the MPLS WG (as VPN is outside the charter of that WG). If the authors want to progress this draft as a WG document, then they should ask L3VPN WG to progress it as an L3VPN WG document (as VPN is within the charter of that WG). Yakov.
- Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-si… IJsbrand Wijnands
- RE: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-ban… NAPIERALA, MARIA H
- Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-ban… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-ban… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-ban… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-ban… Yakov Rekhter
- Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-si… andy.da.green
- Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-ban… Yakov Rekhter
- Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-ban… IJsbrand Wijnands