draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04 L3VPN/OSPF WG Last Call
Acee Lindem <acee@CISCO.COM> Wed, 31 August 2005 15:50 UTC
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EAUqe-0003I6-IN for ospf-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:50:00 -0400
Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27720 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (209.119.0.2) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <16.010DDFD5@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:57 -0400
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id 84483334 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:55 -0400
Received: from 64.102.122.149 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0m) with TCP; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:55 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2005 11:49:56 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,158,1122868800"; d="scan'208"; a="68504619:sNHT31361788"
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j7VFnqT6021283; Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:39 -0400
Received: from [64.102.194.234] ([64.102.194.234]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:39 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2005 15:49:39.0597 (UTC) FILETIME=[989683D0:01C5AE43]
Message-ID: <4315D193.50205@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:49:39 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@CISCO.COM>
Subject: draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospf-2547-04 L3VPN/OSPF WG Last Call
Comments: cc: l3vpn@ietf.org
To: OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
List-Help: <http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OSPF>, <mailto:LISTSERV@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM?body=INFO+OSPF>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:OSPF-unsubscribe-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:OSPF-subscribe-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
List-Owner: <mailto:OSPF-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
List-Archive: <http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OSPF>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 l3vpn (l3vpn@ietf.org) and OSPF WG mailing lists. The document is an l3vpn WG document but it reflects OSPF operation/interaction with BGP/MPLS in a PE/CE environment. Thanks, Acee 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.