Subject: Re: Draft minutes of L2VPN WG meeting @ IETF 66 (Montreal, Quebec, Canada)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:39:48 -0400

This document discusses interoperability issues with standards-based
customer bridging which likely needs to be resolved for different vendors
equipment to work together. It would be a useful WG document.

Is it intended as an informational or standard document?

I would note that it appears to be a work in progress. Mention is made of
several interoperability issues which are not addressed one way or another,
e.g. how should various "slow" 802 protocols be dealt with? The answer may
be different for different existing protocols, and may be different for
unrecognized protocols.

In addition, reference is made to non-standard mechanisms, one example
being a partial-mesh method that is not part of the base VPLS architecture.
I would suggest such issues be resolved before putting them in a WG
document, i.e, either bring partial meshing into VPLS or remove reference
to it.

Regards,
Anil

                    Shane Amante                                                                                   
                    <shane@castlep       To:     [email-masked]                                                    
                    oint.net>            cc:                                                                       
                                         Subject:     Draft minutes of L2VPN WG meeting @ IETF 66 (Montreal,       
                    07/17/2006            Quebec, Canada)                                                          
                    12:46 AM                                                                                       

Draft meeting minutes of the L2VPN WG Session at IETF 66 have been
posted to the following URL:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/minutes/l2vpn.txt

Please review and provide corrections no later than Friday,
8/11/2006, 17:00 EDT (UTC -4).

In addition to the meeting minutes, all of the presentations have
been uploaded to the following URL:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=66

Thanks to Giles Heron, Mohan Nanduri and Mustapha Aissaoui for taking
notes!

-shane & Vach

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:10:52 -0700

Hi Anil,

I assume the draft you are referring to is
draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-03.

Thanks for your comments.  Please see below for clarifications on the
purpose of this draft.

-Vach 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 1:40 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Draft minutes of L2VPN WG meeting @ IETF 66 
> (Montreal, Quebec,Canada)
> 
> 
> 
> This document discusses interoperability issues with 
> standards-based customer bridging which likely needs to be 
> resolved for different vendors equipment to work together. It 
> would be a useful WG document.
> 

It is not a standards track document.  It will be an informational
document.

> 
> I would note that it appears to be a work in progress. 

All working group documents are still work-in-progress.

> Mention is made of several interoperability issues which are 
> not addressed one way or another, e.g. how should various 
> "slow" 802 protocols be dealt with? The answer may be 
> different for different existing protocols, and may be 
> different for unrecognized protocols.

This draft will only capture the issues, and may also include the
complexities of the problems such as those you mention, but will not
present solutions for them.

> 
> In addition, reference is made to non-standard mechanisms, 
> one example being a partial-mesh method that is not part of 
> the base VPLS architecture. I would suggest such issues be 
> resolved before putting them in a WG document, i.e, either 
> bring partial meshing into VPLS or remove reference to it.

The draft attempts to capture the ways in which a VPLS is not a perfect
emulation of ethernet bridging.  Solutions that are presented for these
issues do not invalidate the status of this draft, since it refers to
the basic VPLS solutions.  The partial mesh issue, for example, is noted
as a potential issue for VPLS, and is hence a perfect candidate for
inclusion in this draft.