[mpls] draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec
Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> Tue, 20 April 2010 17:06 UTC
Return-Path: <erosen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D993A6B36 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.239
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_50=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 p4qa0412JjTW for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AC13A6B7B for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,243,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="103335240"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2010 17:06:17 +0000
Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3KH6Gxm018605; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:06:16 GMT
Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o3KH6G9P002644; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:06:16 -0400
To: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 23.1.1
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:06:16 -0400
Message-ID: <2643.1271783176@erosen-linux>
From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
Subject: [mpls] draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:06:53 -0000
At IETF 76, I believe Ice presented the draft "Using mLDP through a Backbone where there is no Route to the Root" to the MPLS WG. The latest version of this draft is draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-01.txt. The draft specifies two new mLDP "recursive" FEC elements, one for use in a VPN context and one for use in a non-VPN context. During a discussion on the mailing list, it was agreed that before the MPLS WG is asked to adopt the draft as a WG draft, the draft should be presented to the L3VPN WG, to see if that WG had any objections to the VPN part of the draft. At IETF 77, I presented this draft to the L3VPN WG. The VPN recursive FEC element was presented, along with two use cases for it: (a) support of unsegmented inter-AS P-tunnels, and (b) limited applicability carrier's carrier support. At the L3VPN WG, there was no objection to the VPN recursive FEC element itself or to use case (a). Rahul objected to use case (b), recommending that this use case be omitted. I argued that if the mechanism is accepted, there isn't much point to suppressing discussion of a possible use, and that the applicability limitations of use case (b) were clearly acknowledged in the document. When the room was asked whether there were any objections to the adoption of this document by the MPLS WG, only one hand was raised. Having now done the "due diligence" of consulting the L3VPN WG, I think we can ask the MPLS WG to accept this draft as a WG draft.
- [mpls] draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec Eric Rosen