IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00

"NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <mn1921@att.com> Mon, 20 February 2012 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mn1921@att.com>
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 5BA8D21F85FB for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:55:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 51wrlsOvZkwQ for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:55:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A474521F85F2 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:54:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Env-Sender: mn1921@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1329778494!16610953!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.5; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 15806 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2012 22:54:54 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-11.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 20 Feb 2012 22:54:54 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1KMtOxJ001065; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:55:24 -0500
Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1KMtLwX001043 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:55:21 -0500
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9e.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.61]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:54:44 -0500
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.1.48]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9E.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.61]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:54:44 -0500
From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H" <mn1921@att.com>
To: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>, L3VPN mailing list <l3vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00
Thread-Topic: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00
Thread-Index: AQHM5+amOkenuSI7yUWI83iVAElikJZGc2AQ
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:54:43 +0000
Message-ID: <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA96F22@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <6EABF66C-AF44-49D6-AA8F-728C894ED957@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6EABF66C-AF44-49D6-AA8F-728C894ED957@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.131.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-RSA-Action: allow
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:55:10 -0000

In my opinion, draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00 fits well within MPLS WG. It adds to a MLDP set of procedures to allow "virtualization" of MLDP in-band signaling.
I am in support for progressing it in MPLS WG.

Regards,

Maria 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of IJsbrand Wijnands
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 6:19 AM
> To: L3VPN mailing list
> Subject: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-vpn-in-band-signaling-00
> 
> 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 L3VPN. 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 not 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 network, following similar procedures and rationale
> as described in draft-ietf-mpls-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,
> 
> Thx,
> 
> The authors.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email