Re: Draft L1VPN Charter

[Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>]

Hmmm... endorsement? I thought it was about cooperation, whatever that
means, no?

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

Wednesday, May 4, 2005, 4:35:09 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> alex, i understand ... the reason is to be clear in terms of protocol
> work endorsement (also CCAMP WG was triggered by SG13 during Seoul
> meeting) ... but indeed worth re-explaining the rules of the game

> Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>
> 05/04/2005 15:48 MST
> Please respond to Alex Zinin

> To:Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>
> cc:Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, Adrian Farrel
> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], Kireeti Kompella
> <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
> bcc:
> Subject:Re: Draft L1VPN Charter




> Makes my skin crawl after the ITU NGN workshop earlier this week, but I can
> add that. Will have to talk to the future WG chairs to clearly explain that
> this shouldn't become a DoS...

> --
> Alex
> http://www.psg.com/~zinin

> Wednesday, May 4, 2005, 10:23:32 AM, Igor Bryskin wrote:
>> Good idea.
>> Igor

>> [e-mail] wrote:

>> igor, all - now that i am thinking of it there is probably a need to
>> add a sentence like "The WG will also liaise with related ITU-T SGs"
>> after "... and other WGs where necessary."

>> Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>
>> Sent by: [e-mail]
>> 05/04/2005 07:18 MST

>> To: Alex Zinin <[e-mail]>, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>,
>> Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, [e-mail], Kireeti
>> Kompella <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>> cc:
>> bcc:
>> Subject: Re: Draft L1VPN Charter




>> Alex, All



>> 2. Enhanced mode: the CE-PE interface provides the signaling capabilities
>> as in the Basic mode, plus permits utilization of the provider's control
>> plane for distribution of user's routing information (e.g. similar to the
>> MPLS/BGP model).

>> I'd like to replace this with:



>> 2. Enhanced mode: the CE-PE interface provides the signaling capabilities
>> as in the Basic mode, plus permits utilization of the provider's control
>> plane for distribution of user's arbitrary control plane information
>> between the VPN sites including but not limited to routing information.



>> Provider network IHMO should make no assumptions on what protocols are
>> running within VPNs. Generally speaking, a L1VPN user is not necessarily
>> GMPLS controlled network. Furthermore, even in case it does use GMPLS it
>> needs L1VPN CE-CE connections to provide (TE) links within VPNs.
>> Specifically, the User should be capable to run LMP for such links, it
>> also should be possible to establish signaling (RSVP) adjacencies between
>> their ends, etc. The bottom line is that distribution of routing
>> information between CEs IHMO is not sufficient. I believe this is
>> consistent with the requirements stated in ITU-T SG13 L1VPN documents



>> Igor





>> Alex Zinin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Folks-

>> Before we bring it to the l1vpn mailing list, I'd like to run this draft
>> by you guys for comments.