RE: Poll to adopt initial milestones for the new L3VPN charter

["NAPIERALA, MARIA H (ATTLABS)" <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,
actually, you have listed a technical reason for coupling acceptance of "Wildcard S-PMSIs" with acceptance of "PIM without MI-PMSI", namely that Wildcard S-PMSI, quote, “is a key building block of the ‘PIM over MS-PMSI’ approach”. 
In addition, there is no technical reason to develop, for example, Extranet or Wildcard documents but not to develop PIM without MI-PMSI or bidirectional P-tunnels documents.
We should be solving the real needs of Service Providers. I have responded as such already to Ben’s poll. One or two people cannot decide which MVPN documents/improvements are to be worked on by the WG and which are not, because the latter improvements do not fit those people “strategy”.

Maria

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Thomas Morin
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:00 AM
> To: L3VPN
> Subject: Re: Poll to adopt initial milestones for the new L3VPN charter
> 
> 
>   Hi Eric,
> 
> Eric Rosen:
> > Thomas Morin:
> >> There are absolutely no technical reasons to couple acceptance of
> the
> >> Wildcard and the Extranet documents with either using PE-PE PIM in
> the
> >> absence of MI-PMSI or a new document on using Bidir P-Tunnels.
> > [...] I think the real decision to be made is whether the WG really
> wants to finish
> > the work and tie up all the loose ends, or whether the WG wants to
> continue
> > its dormancy and wait to see what gets implemented and deployed
> ("rough
> > consensus and running code").
> 
> I don't think you really answered the question I asked, but based on
> your previous emails, I will still try to interpret your answer as a
> reply addressing my question : are you implying that if, beyond
> "Extranet mVPN" and "Wildcard S-PMSI", we do not also adopt some
> milestone on "bidir P-tunnel" and "PIM without an MI-PMSI", then we
> would not "tie up all loose ends" ?
> 
> If, so let me disagree, and try to be a bit more nuanced than
> categorizing each item as being a "loose end" or not :
> - Extranet mVPN: this is a requirement of RFC4834, and the mVPN base
> specs do not document how this can be done, (i.e. can be seen as a
> "loose end")
> - Wildcard S-PMSI: there are two aspects to this subject, on the one
> hand it is an improvement on how S-PMSI bindings are advertised, on the
> other hand it is a key building block of the "PIM over MS-PMSI"
> approach
> you propose  (ie. *not* a "loose end")
> - mVPN fast-failover: targets improving convergence times for mVPN PE
> failures (i.e. targets an "improvement")
> - bidir P-tunnels: although the precise subject may not be fully
> defined
> yet, it seems to be (a) can be a possible P-tunnel scaling improvement
> in the general case but that the base specs may not fully cover (that
> part is in the gray zone between a "loose end" and an "improvement"),
> and (b) something at the core the core of the "PIM over MS-PMSI"
> approach (/that/ part is *not* a "loose end", but totally in the
> category of what targets an "improvement")
> - PIM without an MI-PMSI: based on the claims of your draft
> corresponding to this subject, it seems clear that this proposal
> targets
> an "improvement" of the number of P-tunnel states (i.e. not a "loose
> end")
> 
> It seems to me that:
> * fixing "loose ends" should certainly be part of the work the working
> group should tackle (and as such, it makes sense to make Extranet mVPN
> a
> milestone)
> * we shall not sleep and wait for extensive feedback on all deployment
> variants to decide to work on improvements; if we do so, we'll be 3 or
> 5
> years too late when some operator wants to deploy such an improvements;
> we should instead anticipate, but "anticipating" does not mean that
> each
> proposed/claimed improvement needs to become a milestone, or a standard
> track working group document, or even become a working group document
> at
> all; it does not mean either that these statuses have to be decided all
> at once today : this can very much be decided on a case by case basis
> (...this is what is done most of the time in the IETF !!)
> * if there is a need to make the working group charter more explicit,
> then we can certainly adopt milestones related to stuff that people
> seem
> to agree they are valid subjects (that includes the "Wildcard S-PMSI"
> idea)
> 
> Said differently, I think that the milestones in Ben Niven-Jenkins'
> "Poll to adopt initial milestones for the new L3VPN charter" form a
> good
> set of milestones.
> 
> -Thomas