IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

"NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <mnapierala@att.com> Fri, 10 October 2008 13:22 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 71F123A685D; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:22:10 -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 E4E843A685D for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 X3vuAu77eIWU for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5E13A67E6 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: mnapierala@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-203.messagelabs.com!1223644906!23767138!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54]
Received: (qmail 27514 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2008 13:21:47 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-14.tower-203.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Oct 2008 13:21:47 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9ADMKja001518; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:22:20 -0400
Received: from misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [144.155.43.107]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9ADMGY3001478; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:22:16 -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 09:22:16 -0400
Message-ID: <2F1DE4DFCFF32144B771BD2C246E6A20A5F30F@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <1223632255.5375.87.camel@l-at11168.FTRD>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
Thread-Index: AckqvdKb9doZBpq4R62yfnDuytHaYgAG5ZWA
References: <A834346E-E29F-4CD5-94AF-D6B99D1E2D42@multicasttech.com><2F1DE4DFCFF32144B771BD2C246E6A20E721CD@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> <1223632255.5375.87.camel@l-at11168.FTRD>
From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <mnapierala@att.com>
To: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>, "RAMACHANDRAN, PRASANNA, ATTOPS" <prasanna@att.com>
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, l3vpn@ietf.org
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

Thomas,

>  --> PE scalability is certainly a requirement common to all operators
>      interested in mVPN. It isn't new, and is already explicitly
>      expressed in RFC4834. Your statement, based on a large 
>deployment,
>      confirms that current solutions based on draft-rosen are not
>      satisfying. This is 100% in line with the analysis in
>      draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations which concludes that mVPN
>      routing with the PIM LAN procedures is not the most efficient 
>      architecture for PE scalability.
>
This is not about PE-PE PIM scaling. This is about CE-PE PIM scaling. 

>The solution you suggest: "a solution such as PIM-BiDir [...]"
>
>  -> this statement is technically quite vague, but the helpful
>  interpretation provided by Ice indicates that you favor the 
>  MS-PMSI approach 

It is not vague. It is asking for PIM-Bidir support in MVPN context.
This is nothing to do with favoring MS-PMSI approach. MS-PMSI is just
one of possible approaches to support Bidir.
>
Maria

>
>
>> -----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