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

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

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
>
>
>