IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<andy.da.green@bt.com> Mon, 27 February 2012 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <andy.da.green@bt.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 A245121F856A for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:05:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 j3UvQkiH675A for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtp64.intersmtp.com [62.239.224.237]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67DC021F8504 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EVMHT68-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.105) by RDW083A008ED64.smtp-e4.hygiene.service (10.187.98.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:05:41 +0000
Received: from EMV65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([169.254.1.72]) by EVMHT68-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([10.36.3.105]) with mapi; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:05:41 +0000
From: andy.da.green@bt.com
To: l3vpn@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:05:41 +0000
Subject: 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+amOkenuSI7yUWI83iVAElikJZGc2AQgAoaVpA=
Message-ID: <464C9090B4F1624C9174D50D456B13EF5AE33978A7@EMV65-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <6EABF66C-AF44-49D6-AA8F-728C894ED957@cisco.com> <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA96F22@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <1D70D757A2C9D54D83B4CBD7625FA80EA96F22@MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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, 27 Feb 2012 09:05:46 -0000

This fits well with several planned service implementations
I am in support for progressing it in MPLS WG.

Regards,

Andy

> -----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