Re: [mpls] Way two progress two mldp draft with an technical overlap

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 07 February 2014 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 446771A05AB for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:09:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LzJXeRY_cLig for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C16E1A029D for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:09:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [119.95.153.237]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46F32180150F; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 07:09:53 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52F478A8.1000101@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:09:44 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
References: <529F425C.1050808@pi.nu> <201312061405.rB6E5bL25339@magenta.juniper.net> <52A9958B.7040508@pi.nu> <201312121651.rBCGpYL46117@magenta.juniper.net> <52F11FD8.3000000@pi.nu> <201402042158.s14LwnL93027@magenta.juniper.net> <52F1CC6F.1070906@pi.nu> <201402051430.s15EUML50526@magenta.juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <201402051430.s15EUML50526@magenta.juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org" <draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Way two progress two mldp draft with an technical overlap
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 06:09:59 -0000

Yakov,


On 2014-02-05 22:30, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> I agreed to the plan you proposed in your e-mail on Dec 4, 2013.
> According to this plan
>
>     1.  Issue a single poll to adopt both documents together as
>         working group documents
>
> However, what you doing now is*not*  what you proposed in the plan,
> as now you issued a two week poll on adopting just
> draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding as an MPLS working
> group document.
>
> Yakov.

I found no way to hold the draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-
encoding further, it is almost 5 months since that document were ready
to move.

However, I'm prepared to go to wg adoption poll on draft-rekhter-
mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp very quickly if the following update is made.

OLD

    This document uses BGP Source Active auto-discovery routes, as
    defined in [MVPN-BGP]. This document also identifies the deployment
    scenarios where BGP Source Active auto-discovery routes will not be
    used.

NEW

    This document uses BGP Source Active auto-discovery routes, as
    defined in [MVPN-BGP].

    In a deployment scenario where the service provider has
    provisioned the network in such a way that the RP for a particular
    ASM group G is always between the receivers and the sources. If the
    network is provisioned in this manner, the ingress PE for (S,G)
    is always the same as the ingress PE for the RP, and thus the
    Source Active A-D routes are never needed.  If it is known a priori
    that the network is provisioned in this manner, mLDP in-band
    signaling can be supported using a simplified set of procedures.
    Specification of the simplified procedures supporting this scenario
    is outside the scope of the present document.  See [draft-wijnands-
    mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding]. A service provider will
    provision the PE routers either to use [draft-wijnands] procedures
    or to use the procedures of this document.

/Loa
-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64