Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> Tue, 07 October 2008 15:42 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 C76153A687F; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:42:54 -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 184CA3A687F for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 D3MGlDMHnkXp for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (odd-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B515D3A681A for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m97Fgjl21137; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:42:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [171.70.244.45] (dhcp-171-70-244-45.cisco.com [171.70.244.45]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id m97Fgd024127; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:42:39 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <2F1DE4DFCFF32144B771BD2C246E6A20A5F2B4@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
References: <A834346E-E29F-4CD5-94AF-D6B99D1E2D42@multicasttech.com><1222877148.28824.45.camel@l-at11168.FTRD> <81F49736-BA49-4CBC-9437-BEC475B3E53F@cisco.com> <2F1DE4DFCFF32144B771BD2C246E6A20A5F2B4@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <ACD7CB73-685B-4921-BC79-D4BCA37982DB@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:42:36 +0200
To: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1)
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>, David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
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

In the introduction of draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-03 it  
says that this document is intended ensure interoperable solutions  
across vendors. But when I read the body of the document it turns out  
to be a comparison document between most the available options, and  
the author preferred options are listed as should or must. I've a few  
comments on that:

1. By listing what is a MUST does not guarantee interoperable  
solutions. Its like giving the ingredients for baking a pie, without  
saying how to put it together. As a result you'll see many different  
pie's and you'll be surprised how many variations are possible.

2. The document does not make any recommendation for the core tree  
building, it recommends all options to be implemented. But if one  
vendor implements TE and the other vendor implements mLDP, you don't  
have an interoperable solution.

3. Comparing the different options, like PIM vs BGP for route  
signaling, is controversial. Its similar to OSPF vs ISIS or RSVP-TE  
vs CR-LDP.

So I don't think this draft in its current form provides a solution  
to the real problem, so I vote no.

What I would suggest is to step over the whole comparison of options  
and just create a draft that documents how a particular solution fits  
together based on the protocol drafts that have been written. Then a  
customer can go to the vendor and ask for the solution they want  
implemented.

Thx,

Ice.


On 07 Oct 2008, at 16:18, NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS wrote:

> I agree with Dave. What is needed is a complete and solid requirements
> draft representing service providers offering MVPN service. The
> recommendations draft is not going to be useful.
>
> Maria
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org]
>> On Behalf Of David Ward
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:16 PM
>> To: Thomas Morin
>> Cc: Ross Callon; David Ward; l3vpn@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
>>
>> Should #2 come before #1?
>>
>> -DWard
>>
>> On Oct 1, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Thomas Morin wrote:
>>
>>> Support this approach.
>>>
>>> (detailed input from chairs will be welcome on the precise changes
>>> that
>>> are needed.)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Thomas
>>>
>>> Marshall Eubanks :
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>