Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts

["Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Wen,

I don't think that the requirement for S-PE addressing should have been
removed from this version of the draft. That was a mistake; it is used to
populate the SP-PE TLV and is needed irrespective of whether explicit
routing is used. I think it should be put back into the next version of
the draft.

There is no bad effect from an RT, but it is not needed in pre-defined
topologies of S-Pes and T-Pes. If you are looking for a more general
solution that adds the RT then the usage of FEC129 AII Type 2 for L2VPN
discovery and signalling needs to be fully described, and this is better
done in a separate draft.

Matthew

On 10/10/2012 21:51, "Wen Lin" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Matthew,
>
>Again, thank you for the reply.
>
>As I have stated before that the reason we shall have a route target
>associated with the MS-PW NLRI is that it is a VPN route - i.e. the MS-PW
>NRLI is advertised by the T-PEs for the Layer 2 VPN.
>
>The latest version of this dynamic Multi-Segment PW draft took out the
>section addressed the "S-PE addressing" requirement and also the
>reference to the explicit route TLV(explicit path). This makes the
>proposal a more generic approach for achieving dynamic setup of MS-PW
>using type 2 AII. I still think a route target should be associated with
>the MS-PW NLRI. Or is there any bad effect for associating route target
>in this case?
>
>Thanks,
>Wen 
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:43 AM
>To: Wen Lin; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic
>Multi-Segment PW drafts
>
>Hi Wen,
>
>I think the scenario that you are describing is when you are using AII
>type 2 for auto-discovery. This draft does not exclude doing this, but
>that's a different scenario. Instead, it describes a scenario where we
>are using an aggregated AII type 2 to distribute routes among a known set
>of S-Pes and T-Pes.
>
>If you also want to use AII type 2 in auto-discovery scenarios, when I
>think this needs to be documented in a separate draft. However, I can add
>a sentence to the dynamic MS-PW draft to state that a RT MAY be included
>along with the NLRI.
>
>Matthew 
>
>On 04/10/2012 04:07, "Wen Lin" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>Hi Matthew,
>>
>>Thank you for the reply.
>>
>>On the T-PE, the MP-BGP advertises this MS-PW NLRI for the VPWS
>>instance and the layer 2 VPN. A MS-PW may go across different ASes.
>>The route target serves as a VPN identifier and helps to control the
>>route
>>distribution.   
>>
>>Also we shall not exclude using the same MS-PW NRLI for the
>>auto-discovery of S-PE or T-PE by using the type 2 AII.
>>We shall also not exclude using the same NLRI for the VPLS. The route
>>target will help us identify the VPLS domain that the VSI belongs to
>>and helps us build different topologies for the PW.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Wen
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
>>[mailto:[e-mail]]
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 5:25 AM
>>To: Wen Lin; [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic
>>Multi-Segment PW drafts
>>
>>Wen,
>>
>>Thanks for your comment. I am not sure why sending or processing a
>>route target would be mandatory in the case of MS-PW routing. This is
>>somewhat different from the auto-discovery case described in RFC6074.
>>In MS-PW routing, you know a-priori the PEs that can participate in
>>MS-PW routing and can terminate MS-PWs, the set of PSN tunnel between
>>T-Pes/S-Pes, and the T-LDP next-hop.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Matthew   
>>
>>On 05/09/2012 20:40, "Wen Lin" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>When BGP is used for advertising PW address information, I think we
>>>shall specify in the section 6.1.3 that it MUST have one or more route
>>>targets associated with it since the NRLI is for L2VPN with a an AFI
>>>equals to L2VPN(25).
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Wen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>pwe3 mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>