Subject: consensus stattement on vpsl solutions

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:08:31 +0200

L2VPN Working group consensus statement on VPLS solutions.

There has been a debate for some time about which and how many VPLS
solutions should be progressed in the L2VPN WG. This started back in the
PPVPN and several suggestions
on how to go forward have been offered.

Vpls solutions submitted to the WG include:

a. CE-based Virtual Private LAN
    <draft-lee-ce-based-vpl-02.txt>

b. GVPLS/LPE - Generalized VPLS Solution based on LPE Framework
    <draft-radoaca-ppvpn-gvpls-02.txt>

c. Virtual Private LAN Service
    <draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-00.txt>

d. Virtual Private LAN Services over MPLS
    <draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-00.txt>

The CE-based solution is not included in the working group charter.

Of the remaining three proposals all three are within charter and
they specify similar functionality. Opinions on how the WG should 
proceed with these proposals, however, differ widely. There is a
smaller group that says "Yes, lets do everything!", groups that
are very much in favor one particular solutions, and a group that
says "Lets take the two most popular and bring them to the market
and let the market decide!"

We have discussed how to define working group consensus and find
a way forward, that is acceptable both for the working group and
for the IETF as a standards organization.

These are  our conclusions:

The generalized (b) solution has only weak support as has been
documented in the working group meetings and on the mailing list.
We will not progress this solution further. However, there are
interesting parts of the solution that, e.g. the discussion on
scaling, so we recommend that the authors work with authors of
the other solutions to capture these parts of (b) in other solutions 
documents or to publish this material as IDs in their own right.

The bgp (c) and ldp (d) proposals have such support that under
"normal circumstances" (i.e. no competing proposal) they would have
been accepted as working group documents and rapidly progressed to
Proposed Standard. Both are implemented and deployed.

The functional difference between (c) and (d) is not large,
however they have taken their starting point in two different
networking scenarios. (c) is mostly directed towards networks
based on routers that run a full suite of the Internet Protocols,
while (d) takes as a starting point that it shall be possible to
run also on equipment that do not have all those protocols available
or deployable. We have therefore decided that there is enough support
in the WG for each of these two solutions and enough of a
delta between them that the working group should progress both solutions
to proposed standard.

In summary, the L2VPN working group co-chairs finds:

- that "CE-based Virtual Private LAN" on one side has very little
   support and on the other is not within charter, and will therfor
   not be considered as an option for the working group vpls
   solution.

- that the "GVPLS/LPE - Generalized VPLS Solution based on LPE
   Framework" has not enough support in the working group to be
   a candidate for a working group solutions on the vpls

- that there are interesting parts and discussion within this
   draft that should be captured and either incorporated in the
   working group vpls solution(s) or released as an ID in its own
   right

- that both "Virtual Private LAN Service (c) and "Virtual Private LAN
   Services over MPLS" (d) has enough support to be progressed
   towards Proposed Standard in their own right

- that there is a networking scenario delta that motivates the
   differences between these two solutions

Vach   Rick   Loa

-- 
Loa Andersson

Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
Email           [email-masked]

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:38:50 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Loa,

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Loa Andersson wrote:

<snipped>
> In summary, the L2VPN working group co-chairs finds:
<snipped>
>    working group vpls solution(s) or released as an ID in its own

Okay, sounds good.  Will wait for feedback from the authors that is
applicable to the BGP VPLS document.

>    differences between these two solutions

Great!  This is good progress.

Kireeti.