Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02.txt

"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Fri, 29 August 2014 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
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 EE4A31A02A3 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 05:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.133
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.133 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 nVbmSBLPrvrx for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 05:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7191A0296 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 05:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.14
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,424,1406606400"; d="scan'208";a="496312687"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.14]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 29 Aug 2014 08:48:37 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.78]) by PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.14]) with mapi; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:49:37 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" <jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:49:36 -0400
Thread-Topic: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02.txt
Thread-Index: Ac/Dh7BxgJUhyS8YQXGI3IuXdPocXA==
Message-ID: <D025ED8E.2CF5B%wesley.george@twcable.com>
References: <20140825131717.30746.87087.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D020B053.2C86B%wesley.george@twcable.com> <D024A750.4D8CB%jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <D024A750.4D8CB%jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/c8K6tOOqJCaVtehxeisQCaL4DRU
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02.txt
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, 29 Aug 2014 12:49:41 -0000

On 8/28/14, 12:52 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)"
<jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:


>- Minor: EVPN is a separate AFI/SAFI so I would not make it a sub-section
>of L2VPN, but I would rather put it at the same level. Now that the L2VPN
>WG will no longer be a WG on its own, I would not classify EVPN as L2VPN
>anymore. EVPN can even do L3.
WG] My read was that it was using L2VPN's AFI, but defining a new SAFI, so
by strict interpretation, it is a subtype of L2VPN. IMHO it's a bit
hair-splitting either way. The absence or presence of a WG doesn't really
figure into my thought process when it comes to classification, especially
with the overall respin of the WGs in Routing Area, but I'm open to
further discussion if it really needs to be changed.

>
>- Why does EVPN inherit RFC 6074 gaps? I don’t see any gap in any of the
>EVPN defined route types or procedures. I would remove that and keep the
>dependency on mLDP and RFC 7117 (if any) for the PMSI tunnel attribute
>that EVPN inherits. Other than that I see no gaps in EVPN.
WG] good to know I was mostly reading this right. The reason that I said
that it inherits 6074 gaps is that it can use LDP. Therefore it won't work
over LDP on an IPv6-only network until the gaps in LDP are fixed, right?
Or is there something I'm missing that makes that an invalid logical leap?

Thanks!

Wes George


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.