Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,

>
> I'm slightly tired of hearing the same arguments in tens emails  
> from the
> same source, but I will still try to highlight a few misleading or  
> wrong
> statements (below).
>
> Most importantly, I would like to highlight the fact that, AFAICT the
> people opposing the path proposed by the chairs have not proposed an
> alternative that would help the working group push to the IESG, a  
> set of
> documents describing a multicast VPN solution that vendors can  
> implement
> and that would inter-operate.

That is not true, Cisco posted the draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn- 
profiles-01, which documents very precisely how the PIM based  
solutions work. And we are more then willing to add a BGP profile to  
it with help of the people that prefer a BGP approach.

After last IETF I had hoped to see a proposal from the chairs to  
create 2 drafts, one documenting a PIM based solutions set, and an  
other based on BGP. Both moving forward on standards track. These  
documents don't need to make comparisons between BGP and PIM (as is  
done in the Morin draft), because this creates endless discussions  
and don't get us anywhere. It just needs to document how the  
different modules work together so that vendors can be interoperable.  
Each customer can choose the preferred approach and talk to the  
vendor for an implementation.

Thx,

Ice.