Last call on draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04

Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Wed, 31 August 2005 15:16 UTC

Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20050831111344.02718af8@zircon.juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:16:10 -0400
To: l3vpn@ietf.org
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <200508291545.j7TFjpQl000639@rtp-core-2.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: erosen@cisco.com
Subject: Last call on draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04
Precedence: list
Sender: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org

This begins working group last call on draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04.
This last call is limited to the changes that Eric has made to the
document (which are outlined in Eric's email below). The last call
will end in two weeks (September 14th).

Please send any comments to the working group mailing list.

Thanks, Ross

At 11:45 AM 8/29/2005 -0400, Eric Rosen wrote:
>As  a  result of  AD  review,  significant changes  have  been  made to  the
>specification draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547.  These changes  can be seen in the
>latest version, draft -04.  It is believed that the draft now corresponds to
>the implementations.
>
>The following issues were addressed as a result of the AD review.
>
>The spec was  written so as to  allow a single VRF to  correspond to multiple
>OSPF  domains.  However, it  did not  make clear  just which  parameters and
>procedures are relative to a domain,  and which are relative to a VRF.  This
>has  now been  cleared up.   However,  doing so  required extensive  textual
>changes.
>
>There  are cases  where  BGP decides  to  put a  route into  the  VRF for  a
>particular address prefix, and OSPF also decides to put a route into the VRF
>for that same address prefix.  Of  course, only one of these can actually be
>used for  forwarding.  The  original spec did  not make it  adequately clear
>just how  a choice  between two such  routes would  be made.  This  has been
>clarified.  In  some cases,  the results will  be different than  they would
>have been if the VPN were really a pure OSPF network.  These differences are
>now explained and their potential consequences pointed out.
>
>The  procedures  for  forwarding data  traffic  on  a  sham link  have  been
>clarified.  The procedures  for sending OSPF control traffic  on a sham link
>have been clarified.  The role of the optional  "sham link endpoint address"
>has been clarified.
>
>The  procedures for  translating BGP-distributed  VPN-IPv4 routes  into OSPF
>routes have been clarified.
>
>A discussion  of NSSA routes has been  added.  Alex says it  is not detailed
>enough; any feedback in this area would be welcome.
>
>Due to the large number of changes,  Alex has asked for a new last call, and
>I expect the WG chairs to formally issue the last call shortly.

draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04 Eric Rosen
Last call on draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04 Ross Callon