[Pals] draft-ietf-pals-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten - some comments
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Thu, 18 June 2015 09:18 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388541B30A2 for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.81
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.81 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 pvB6WFck49Ud for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 02:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 777FE1A870C for <pals@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 02:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7559; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1434619133; x=1435828733; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject; bh=RbKpQa6p+Z+7UMtfg5vVuRFmWIU/E/kAa38+sh0AvpE=; b=JE94pTj+rIZA9fWp48LgtIF9Yu84pGCiAPBKQe3LAkZ2w/CdT3Bex2NB eiaOJXGcCTHfAXffYFOKKQCiPzJGDWg+R83wtGHY9LnbJ6CztsihN2R7e GXSRP5clBgFJofwrv1QalQzX58019ALCX0RJslfkG1wS++k54K7E+FiLM M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,638,1427760000"; d="scan'208,217";a="532330752"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2015 09:18:51 +0000
Received: from [10.55.98.187] (ams-stbryant-88110.cisco.com [10.55.98.187]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5I9InaN031158; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:18:50 GMT
Message-ID: <55828CFF.2060600@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:18:55 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-pals-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten@tools.ietf.org, "pals@ietf.org" <pals@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080003060201000707080708"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/iQUWapQuq2QspU0wO6695Xa736A>
Subject: [Pals] draft-ietf-pals-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten - some comments
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:18:56 -0000
I took a quick look at this draft and will give it a more detailed review when it get to WGLC Please see below. However I have a significant concern that the PALS WG needs to address before this draft can progress to publication. The approach described in this draft relies on the use of P2MP PWs. However neither PWE3 or PALS has published an RFC specifying a P2MP PW. The draft that you rely on for the P2MP PW specification (draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw) expired nearly three years ago.. ======== 1. Introduction This document proposes a simple extension to LDP-VPLS [RFC4762] to improve bandwidth efficiency for Ethernet broadcast/multicast traffic within a carrier's network. This bandwidth improvement is achieved by adding to the existing full-mesh of bidirectional point-to-point PseudoWires (P2P PWs) unidirectional point-to-multipoint PseudoWires (P2MP PWs) between selected PEs within a VPLS instance. SB> You have not yet provided a definition or reference to P2MP PWs. SB> More worrying, whilst there are requirements for P2MP PWs, there SB> is no PALS/PWE3 specification of a P2MP PW outside an MPLS-TP context SB> (which you do not point to). I would think that we need a specification SB> of a P2MP PW before we can publish a specification that uses them. With P2MP PWs, the ingress PE is not responsible for replicating the payload frame on each P2P PW towards the egress PE, instead the network elements along the physical path participate in the replication process. The replication is done by the underlying point-to-multi- point label switched path. This proposal allows for a large number of P2MP PWs to be carried through a single MPLS P2MP tunnel, thus, it is never necessary to maintain state in the network core for individual P2MP PWs. Delord & Key Expires Dec 2015 [Page 2] Internet Draft Ext to LDP-VPLS for broadcast multicast June 2015 2. Problem Statement & Motivation 2.1. Requirements for Broadcast/Multicast Support in VPLS [RFC5501] provides an in-depth discussion on broadcast/multicast related requirements for VPLS. It highlights two specific issues: - issue A: replication to non-member site. - issue B: replication of PWs on shared physical path. 2.1.1. Issue A: replication to non-member site The current standard VPLS is a L2VPN service agnostic to customer's SB> I think that should be "that is agnostic" Layer 3 traffic, hence does not maintain any information about IP SB> hence what?, or do you mean "because it" multicast group membership. Although a Layer 3 IP multicast packet is encapsulated in a Layer 2 Ethernet multicast frame, the current standard VPLS treats Ethernet multicast frame in exactly the same way as Ethernet broadcast frame. There is therefore an issue that multicast traffic is sent to sites with no members. Since the upstream PE does not maintain downstream membership information, it simply floods frames to all downstream PEs, and the downstream PEs forward them to directly connected CEs; however, those CEs might not be the members of any multicast group. SB> You might want to look at the logic flow in the previous para. SB> I think you repeat yourself. (I stopped reviewing at this point) - Stewart
- [Pals] draft-ietf-pals-ldp-vpls-broadcast-exten -… Stewart Bryant