Subject: [PWE3] ICCP draft and mLACP

From: "Sadler, Jonathan B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:58:59 -0500

Hello Luca,

At PWE3 today, you asked the question if the technology specific details in the ICCP draft (found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-00) should be split out from the base document.  I indicated my support for a split and wanted to let you know my reasoning.

Within the last 2-3 years, IEEE has identified that 802.3ad doesn't have a requirement to be bound to Ethernet, nor does it need to be bound to a single-node to single-node deployment.  This has led to the agreement that work on LAG be moved from 802.3 and into 802.1.  As a result of the move in responsibility, 802.3 has removed clause 43 from the 802.3 specification, and 802.1 has placed the text into its own document: 802.1AX-2008.  Extensions to 802.1AX for Multi-Chassis LAG, etc. are expected to be developed for this document.

While the work on Multi-Chassis LAG (i.e. allowing LAG to operate in a multi-homed configuration as shown in the ICCP draft) is still on the "todo" list in 802.1 for 802.1AX, it requires essentially the same sort of information that has been included in section 7.2 of the ICCP draft.  Defining the protocol to carry this information (e.g extensions to LDP/development of ICCP) can be stated as something IETF is a master of, but the required data for the application and NE behaviours are probably best co-developed with IEEE.  Not only would this get the correct experts involved in the development, it would allow for commonality with a non-MPLS based solution.

By placing the technology specific bits into a separate I-D, the base ICCP draft has any encumbrance removed and can progress quickly.  If IEEE is not interested in developing multi-chassis then I can understand IETF progressing the mLACP application work independantly.  However, it would be bad (in my mind) to have duplicate work done in IETF (developing an MPLS specific solution) and in IEEE (developing an general Ethernet spec).

I hope this helps.

Jonathan Sadler

============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================

---

From: "Tony Jeffree" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:23:11 +0100

Jonathan -

It is the policy of the IEEE SA and its working groups not to accept any communication
that attempts to place any kind of burden on the recipient(s) with respect to
confidentiality or copyright.

On a personal level, I do not recognize or accept the burdens that any such disclaimers
attempt to place upon me without my prior consent.

If you wish to communicate with me via email, you will please do so without appending such
disclaimers to your messages. Any further messages that contain such a notice will be
ignored.

Regards,
Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Sadler, Jonathan B. [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 27 July 2009 17:59
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Tony Jeffree
Subject: ICCP draft and mLACP

Hello Luca,
 
At PWE3 today, you asked the question if the technology specific details in the ICCP draft
(found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-00) should be split out from the
base document.  I indicated my support for a split and wanted to let you know my
reasoning.
 
Within the last 2-3 years, IEEE has identified that 802.3ad doesn't have a requirement to
be bound to Ethernet, nor does it need to be bound to a single-node to single-node
deployment.  This has led to the agreement that work on LAG be moved from 802.3 and into
802.1.  As a result of the move in responsibility, 802.3 has removed clause 43 from the
802.3 specification, and 802.1 has placed the text into its own document: 802.1AX-2008.
Extensions to 802.1AX for Multi-Chassis LAG, etc. are expected to be developed for this
document.
 
While the work on Multi-Chassis LAG (i.e. allowing LAG to operate in a multi-homed
configuration as shown in the ICCP draft) is still on the "todo" list in 802.1 for
802.1AX, it requires essentially the same sort of information that has been included in
section 7.2 of the ICCP draft.  Defining the protocol to carry this information (e.g
extensions to LDP/development of ICCP) can be stated as something IETF is a master of, but
the required data for the application and NE behaviours are probably best co-developed
with IEEE.  Not only would this get the correct experts involved in the development, it
would allow for commonality with a non-MPLS based solution.
 
By placing the technology specific bits into a separate I-D, the base ICCP draft has any
encumbrance removed and can progress quickly.  If IEEE is not interested in developing
multi-chassis then I can understand IETF progressing the mLACP application work
independantly.  However, it would be bad (in my mind) to have duplicate work done in IETF
(developing an MPLS specific solution) and in IEEE (developing an general Ethernet spec).
 
I hope this helps.
 
Jonathan Sadler