Subject: Your comments on 3 possible new PPVPN WG documents

From: "Marco Carugi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:02:21 +0100

All,  

I'd like to have your comments on the list about 3 drafts  before Atlanta
meeting.
The intention is to move them to WG document status asap (note this is in
line with what discussed in Yokohama) and I'd like to see if still and which
are your major concerns.
Hopefully, it will be possible to officialise something at the Atlanta
meeting.

Thanks, Marco

- Generic Requirements for Provider Provisioned VPN : 
draft-nagarajan-ppvpn-generic-reqts-01.txt (deliverable agreed in Yokohama
based on IESG input). Umbrella reqts document for specific L3 and L2 reqts
documents. Info RFC track. 

- Requirements for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network services : 
draft-augustyn-ppvpn-l2vpn-requirements-01.txt (agreed in Yokohama to
supercede the current  VPLS WG document). 
- draft-luciani-ppvpn-vpn-discovery-03.txt : agreed as WG doc before
Yokohama, but the authors just resubmitted it now. So, I wish that we check
it again. Intention is to progress it similarly to BGP-autodiscovery draft
(already WG doc),  as one of the discovery methods.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:57:48 -0800

Marco,

> (already WG doc),  as one of the discovery methods.  

From draft-luciani-ppvpn-vpn-discovery-03.txt:

   To date, proposals for VPN discovery have focused on including VPN
   information in BGP and IGP routing protocols.   This method has the
   unfortunate effect of increasing the size of routing tables within
   the set of affected provider domains, even for those devices that
   are not involved in the VPN.  This increase in size may be quite
   significant in some cases.  
   
   There are other disadvantages to linking discovery and signaling to
   each other, and to an existing routing protocol.  Routing changes or
   recalculations could interfere with the discovery and signaling
   functions of VPNs.  When PE equipment is connected with explicitly
   routed LSPs, for example, such interference is completely
   unwarranted.  Likewise, VPN changes (adding or deleting VPN support)
   impact routing tables with unnecessary updates, as this information
   must be propagated across the network via the routing protocol.   

The analysis  of using BGP for auto-discovery in the above two
paragraphs is superficial and contains technical inaccuracies.
Moreover, if there is a consensus within the WG that there is
a need to compare and constast  BGP vs DNS for autodiscovery
it would be more appropriate to have a separate document on this
topic.

Therefore, I request that the above two paragraphs be deleted
from the draft before it would become a PPVPN WG document.

Yakov.