IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

"Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <lufang@cisco.com> Fri, 10 October 2008 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: l3vpn-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-l3vpn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EBD3A69C5; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72FEA3A69C5 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9KGoeMcYP0j0 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480803A69AF for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,390,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="23871463"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2008 14:42:07 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9AEg75w026031 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:42:07 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9AEg6XS027316 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:42:07 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:41:43 -0400
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:41:43 -0400
Message-ID: <DD7E9F364F33B54881C225192D4872D7A878D9@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2479.1223644930.4981.l3vpn@ietf.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
Thread-Index: Ackq22IVXcYVaWuNTVSpYzh1QFICugAAoMdg
From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <lufang@cisco.com>
To: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2008 14:41:43.0645 (UTC) FILETIME=[506598D0:01C92AE6]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1864; t=1223649727; x=1224513727; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=lufang@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Luyuan=20Fang=20(lufang)=22=20<lufang@cisco.com > |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Advancing=20the=20Protocol=20and=20Mori n=20Drafts |Sender:=20 |To:=20<l3vpn@ietf.org>; bh=zPNe6RiNzEUVVyAwvibJhA//KAr5vLq2UGw6/N5iQek=; b=AX7P4HfhONegBJm0R62SLNjUuxC3f4LQ0xysDOoCPNw6Xqj6uRYFD57zBi ShbrQtHki3Xs8YAfUsJi4HISfnKTNHA0VGNinWcnM/+8ei4h60nM30FLXayS ZyJI2N9Ntv;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=lufang@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Sender: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org

 
When there is substantial deployment in the field with the existing
approach, making a newer proposal a must and the exiting one an optional
is business/operation/customer impacting. Many folks spoke out here are
running live networks, this is not a theoretical debate. I don't see we
can get consensus here. 

Could we still proceed with the two protocol drafts, like we did for
L2VPN - both LDP signaling and BGP signaling became standards? I think
that would be useful comparing with no standards for MVPN at all. 

Thanks,
Luyuan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf

> Of Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:04 AM
> To: l3vpn@ietf.org
> Cc: Ross Callon
> Subject: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
> 
> This email starts a 3 week call for input, to expire October 23, 2008,

> for the following steps:
> 
> 1.) To accept draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03 as a working 
> group document;  and
> 
> 2.) To turn this document into a requirements draft, with mandatory to

> implement features for an interoperable implementation. The authors 
> have indicated that they are willing to do this.
> 
> Our intention is, if this approach is accepted, to then begin WG last 
> call to submit to the IESG for publication:
> 
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp
> 
> We expect that these two documents will be submitted more or less as 
> is (i.e., certainly with any new bug fixes or other necessary 
> corrections and improvements, but without specific mandatory to 
> implement feature description in those drafts).
> 
> Please respond to the list with your recommendations for these two 
> courses of action.
> 
> Regards
> Marshall & Danny

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status