|
Re: Last Call: <draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07.txt> (Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling) to Informational RFC
2011-09-14 16:09:42
Hi Stewart,
On Sep 14, 2011, at 11:13 , Stewart Bryant wrote:
It is clear that:
1) RFC6074 is the IETF recommended approach.
2) That draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn is in active deployment.
The question is whether the number of independent
deployments of draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn is
increasing or not. In other words is this a legacy
approach that will over time decline, or is it a
parallel alternative that will be actively chosen
by some subset of operators going forward and
which will be implemented by more than one vendor.
a) The deployments are increasing. This is the chosen approach for some subset
of operators. This is not a legacy approach. I can't say what will happen
going forward, but to the extent that I can see, this is the chosen direction
for some subset of operators.
b) There are implementations by more than one vendor.
c) The BBF will build solutions on top of this, in parallel with other
approaches.
Kireeti.
- Stewart
On 13/09/2011 21:14, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Luca,
The draft in question exists for almost 8 years (the -00 version has been
posted 2004-01-13), has been implemented and deployed.
I have not heard that solutions compliant with RFC 6074 (which is the proper
analog of 4447 in this case IMO) have been deployed in this interval - and
that in spite of 6074 sitting in the RFC Editor queue (i.e., sufficiently
stable for any potential implementer) for almost 6 years (from 2006-06-12).
Hence I do not see this case as similar to what happened to the original
draft-martini vs. RFC 4447.
Do I miss something substantial here?
Regards,
Sasha
________________________________________
From: Luca Martini [lmartini(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:16 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: l2vpn(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; pwe3; IETF Discussion; Andrew G. Malis
Subject: Re: Last Call:<draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07.txt> (Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling) to
Informational RFC
On 09/13/11 10:03, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Luca, and all,
I concur with Andy's opinion that the reference to RFC 4447 must become
Normative (this will not delay the publication is too often the case:-).
As for Informational vs. Historical, I think that Informational is more
appropriate because, AFAIK, the technique defined in draft-kompella is not
just a documenting an existing solution - it describes is THE ONLY deployed
solution for the problem. (If this statement happens to be factually
incorrect, I would be happy to learn about the deployed alternatives.)
no, there are several ( I think 3 ) implementations of the
l2vpn-singalling standards track document also known as rfc6074.
There are several deployments of rfc6074.
As 10 years ago we had several deployments of "draft-martini" which over
time are being updated to rfc4447 , there are some deployments of the
solution described in the draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07.txt. I still
think that an historical RFC would fit this solution , unless we plan on
expanding it , and pursuing new enhancements to it.
Luca
Regards,
Sasha
-----Original Message-----
From: l2vpn-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:l2vpn-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Luca
Martini
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:24 PM
To: Andrew G. Malis
Cc: l2vpn(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; pwe3; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Last Call:<draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07.txt> (Layer 2
Virtual
Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling) to
Informational
RFC
I concurr with Andy.
Given that the WG has made a decision on which control plane technology
is the standard track technology we should have a statement in this
document pointing to the standard track rfc4447 so it is clear to anyone
reading the document.
In the same way we published the draft-martini documents as historical
ee should publish this document as historical rfc, to document existing
implementations.
Luca
On 09/01/11 05:42, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
Speaking as an individual, the solution in this draft has been has
been operationally deployed in a number of service provider networks,
and it should be documented in an informational RFC.
Speaking as PWE3 co-chair, I would be happier if this draft required
that routers that implement this solution also implement RFC 4447,
that RFC 4447 be configured as the default mechanism for pseudowire
signaling, and that RFC 4447 was moved from an informational to a
normative reference. In practice, I know that routers that implement
this also do implement RFC 4447, but I would like to see it in the RFC
as well.
Thanks,
Andy
Subject: Last Call: (Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP
for Auto-discovery and Signaling) to Informational RFC
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:50:05 -0700
From: The IESG<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
<mailto:iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Reply-To:
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: IETF-Announce<ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
<mailto:ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
the following document:
- 'Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-discovery and
Signaling'
<draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07.txt> as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> mailing
lists by 2011-09-27.
Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
instead. In either case,
please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs) based on Frame Relay or
ATM
circuits have been around a long time; more recently, Ethernet
VPNs,
including Virtual Private LAN Service, have become popular.
Traditional L2VPNs often required a separate Service Provider
infrastructure for each type, and yet another for the Internet and
IP
VPNs. In addition, L2VPN provisioning was cumbersome. This
document
presents a new approach to the problem of offering L2VPN services
where the L2VPN customer's experience is virtually identical to
that
offered by traditional Layer 2 VPNs, but such that a Service
Provider
can maintain a single network for L2VPNs, IP VPNs and the Internet,
as well as a common provisioning methodology for all services.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn/
The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1149/
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI
Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us
by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies
thereof.
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI
Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us
by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|