Subject: RE: FW: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ppvpn-cl-tunneling-vpn-00.txt

From: "Schliesser, Benson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:25:50 -0600

> I don't  remember the discussion  which concluded that  this 
> should be  a WG document.  But anyway ... 

I'm glad you said that, Eric, because I was thinking the same thing.

> Right now  I think there's no question  of CTCP going forward 
> as a proposed standard.  I  don't see  how that could  happen
> unless CTCP were integrated into the  VR model  in some  way.

While 4-in-6 tunneling is a concept that could be applied to the VR model,
I'd suggest that the CTCP model is naturally exclusive of the VR model just
as it is the BGP/MPLS model. It supplants the route distribution mechanism
of both models with a new one.

> With regard  to its going forward  as an informational RFC,
> I don't really see why it should.  [...] and this particular 
> solution seems to have a number of  unresolved issues. Unless
> there  is already  widespread deployment of CTCP, I don't see
> what the interest is.

I have to agree with Eric's comments (including those not quoted here) on
this draft. While it's possible that this model will actually work, I don't
see how it's a better alternative to any of the existing models. In fact, as
Eric points out, there are a great many concerns with the model. If it had
some hope of becoming a stronger solution than what exists today I would
suggest that we work through these concerns and help it mature. But I tend
towards thinking that would be wasted energy.

This draft is interesting for discussion, but not useful for
standardization. And if it's not employed by more than a single provider
then I see no reason to bother documenting it in a public forum.

-Benson

---

From: Takeshi KUWAHARA <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:22:24 +0900

Dear Benson,

Thank you very much for your comments on our draft.

>of both models with a new one.

I think it is said in the VR draft that the hub-and-spoke topology
is applicable. So why wouldn't it be possible to apply CTCP to the
VR model by using IP-in-IP for the tunneling?
Could you please explain the reasons in more concrete terms.

>see how it's a better alternative to any of the existing models.

We think our approach has much advantages because it can lower the
load of control by the stateless procedures, and the routing loop problem
has been solved.

>In fact, as

Please refer to my reply to Eric.

>then I see no reason to bother documenting it in a public forum.

Our approach has already been employed by several providers, and
implementations were made by multiple vendors, of which interoperability
has also been tested. Therefore we believe it would be useful for the
public.

Regards,
Takeshi Kuwahara.