Re: Draft L1VPN Charter

Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Wed, 04 May 2005 22:50 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20644 for <rtg-dir-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 May 2005 18:50:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DTSvU-0003OZ-PV for rtg-dir-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 19:05:09 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTSff-0004MX-V0; Wed, 04 May 2005 18:48:47 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DTSfe-0004MS-C6 for rtg-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 18:48:46 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20560 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 May 2005 18:48:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DTStp-0003IT-Ei for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2005 19:03:25 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1DTSfb-000290-Id; Wed, 04 May 2005 22:48:43 +0000
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:48:41 -0700
From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <192513221.20050504154841@psg.com>
To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050504172332.26986.qmail@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <OFEADBA0EB.525B194C-ONC1256FF7.005BD494-C1256FF7.005BD585@netfr.alcatel.fr> <20050504172332.26986.qmail@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be, takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp, rtg-dir@ietf.org, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Draft L1VPN Charter
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

> Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be 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 <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
> Sent by: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org
> 05/04/2005 07:18 MST

> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>,
> Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, rtg-dir@ietf.org, Kireeti
> Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp
> 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 <zinin@psg.com> wrote: 

> Folks-

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