Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-04.txt

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:50:05 -0400

The  issue of  concern in  L2VPN is  how to  do the  signaling when  PWs get
spliced together.  With regard to that: 

- I'm not sure there is consensus yet even in the L2VPN group that this is a
  problem that needs to be solved;

- There is a proposal there for solving it with the currently specified PWE3
  mechanisms, but  it is not clear  whether there is a  consensus there that
  that proposal is the best solution. 

- There is  a  second proposal  there  for solving  it in  a  way which  is
  compatible with the currently specified  PWE3 mechanisms (use of a new ERO
  TLV in the LDP mapping messages). 

I don't see how this situation justifies holding up the approval of the PWE3
control spec.  Should  it turn out at some later time  that L2VPN develops a
solution which requires some extension of the PWE3 control mechanisms, those
extensions can be developed at that time.

---

From: Chris Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:32:25 -0700

>   problem that needs to be solved;

Does this mean that multi-hop PWs will be provisioned by manually splicing 
each segment together? Or does this
mean that no one sees a need for multi-hop PWs at all?

>   that proposal is the best solution.

That's the L2VPN signaling draft, right?

>   TLV in the LDP mapping messages).

So the real PW source needs to be fed (configured with) an ERO vector with 
each intermediate PW segment end-point including the real PW target?
In multi-AS (provider) environment, this would require knowledge of an 
external provider's internal addressing scheme. Problem?

Where is the LDP ERO described?

>extensions can be developed at that time.

Agree ...

>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3