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

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

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 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 n twork, 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 al lowed.
> 
> 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.

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.