Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-05.txt

From: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:00:01 -0600

This is the start of last call for:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-05.txt

Last call will close at end of day 2 September 2005.

-shane

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:43:03 -0700

Couple of comments:

>From 3.2.1:

   See Section 4 for a discussion of VSI-ID assignment in the case of
   multiple providers.)

Perhaps I missed it, but I was not able to find any references to
VSI-ID in Section 4.

>From 3.2.2.1:

   In order to use BGP-based auto-discovery as specified in [BGP-AUTO],
   the globally unique identifier associated with a VPLS must be
   encodable as an 8-byte Route Distinguisher (RD).  

That seems to imply that in order to use [BGP-AUTO] a VPLS has to
have a (single) unique identifier, and this identifier has to be encodable
as an RD. First of all this is incorrect, as [BGP-AUTO] explicitly states that

  Note that it is not strictly necessary for all
  the VSIs in the same VPLS to have the same RD, all that is really
  necessary is that the NLRI uniquely identify a virtual LAN switch. 

Second, I'd the authors to explain what breaks when not all the
VSIs within a given VPLS use the same RD (provided that the RD is
still globally unique).

Yakov.

---

From: Bruce Davie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:27:49 -0400

> Perhaps I missed it, but I was not able to find any references to

Sorry, that was careless writing on my part. The VSI-ID is the 
concatenation of an RD with another 32 bits of ID, and we discuss RD 
allocation in 4.4. I will clarify this.

> have a (single) unique identifier,

I don't understand why you think this text implies a single unique ID. 
That was not our intent, and as you point out below, nothing breaks if 
one does not. Perhaps to avoid this confusion I could change the above 
text along the lines of:

  In order to use BGP-based auto-discovery as specified in [BGP-AUTO],
    there must be at least one globally unique identifier associated 
with a VPLS, and each such identifier must be
    encodable as an 8-byte Route Distinguisher (RD).

Bruce

> and this identifier has to be encodable

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:54:26 -0700

> allocation in 4.4. I will clarify this.

That would be fine.

>     encodable as an 8-byte Route Distinguisher (RD).

That would certainly address my concern.

Yakov.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:35:53 -0700

Bruce,

[clipped...]

>   encodable as an 8-byte Route Distinguisher (RD).

As I said in my previous e-mail, this would be fine. But please
also apply the same fix to the similar text in 3.3.2.1.

Yakov.