From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Tue May 27 05:21:50 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05576 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:21:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4R9LnD01168 for l3vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:21:49 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4R9LnB01165 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:21:49 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05566 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KacW-0002Yn-00 for l3vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:19:48 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KacV-0002Yj-00 for l3vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:19:47 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4R9LIB01138; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:21:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4R9KcB01116 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:20:38 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05553 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:20:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KabN-0002YS-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:18:37 -0400 Received: from mailb.telia.com ([194.22.194.6]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KabM-0002YO-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 27 May 2003 05:18:36 -0400 Received: from d1o888.telia.com (d1o888.telia.com [213.67.172.241]) by mailb.telia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4R9K3Vj018601; Tue, 27 May 2003 11:20:03 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-Recipient: l3vpn@ietf.org Received: from pi.se (h45n1fls31o888.telia.com [213.67.172.45]) by d1o888.telia.com (8.10.2p2/8.10.1) with ESMTP id h4R9K3c06424; Tue, 27 May 2003 11:20:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3ED32CD4.6020802@pi.se> Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:16:04 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020605 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ross Callon CC: Yakov Rekhter , Juha Heinanen , Alex Zinin , PPVPN@nortelnetworks.com, l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Draft charter for L3VPN: inter-AS/inter-provider References: <4.3.2.20030516140719.028fab60@zircon.juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: l3vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l3vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ross, thinking about this I believe that there are four different scenarios: - single provider / single AS - single provider / multiple AS - multiple co-operating providers / multiple AS - Internet I would like any solution for the L3 VPN to work in all these scenarions. Having said this I also recognize that there is a difference on possible level of service in the different scenarios. While an L3VPN across the Internet will be a best effort service, the same service in the single provider / single AS might give you absolute QoS guarantees. So I my take is that we need to be open recognize all these scenarios in the charter, but would like to see i clear priority. My personal priority today would be: 1. Internet 2. single provider / single AS 3. multiple co-operating providers / multiple AS 4. single provider / multiple AS Where priority 1 and 2 is a photo finish decision. /Loa Ross Callon wrote: > At 10:02 AM 5/12/2003 -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > >>... The inter-AS >>solution must has enough details from the very beginning to >>demonstrate that there is a a backwards compatible migration path > >>from intra-provider to inter-provider. > >>Yakov. > > > My understanding is that this discussion is still related to what goes into > the proposed charter for the Layer 3 VPN working group. In this context > we don't have to solve the problem right now, we just need to decide > what goes into the charter. > > My personal view is that multi-AS one-provider is important enough that > it is worth mentioning in the charter. Multi-AS, multi-provider is probably > also something that we want to have as a possible option. Thus I think > that we might as well mention these in the charter. > > I am not so sure about slowing down the base documents in order to > get the multi-AS cases fully fleshed out. We have already slowed down > the base documents to wait to finish the Framework and Requirements > documents, and there is the possibility of slowing them down to wait > for a security document. > > To me whether to insist on the inter-AS case being solved and fully > documented before progressing the solutions documents comes down > to three things: (i) How important are the multi-AS cases; and (ii) How > confident are we that if we postpone the multi-AS work, that we > won't end up with a situation where we wish that we had changed the > base documents; and (iii) How long will it take to fully document the > inter-AS cases? > > A question for Alex and Thomas Narten: Suppose hypothetically that > there is consensus to work on the inter-AS cases, and suppose that > we don't want to slow down the base documents to wait for this to > complete. In this case, the L3 VPN working group might work on > progressing existing documents (the long list from the proposed > charter that Alex sent out) as a high priority item, and work on the > inter-AS cases as a lower priority. In this case, would we want to > explicitly mention the Inter-AS cases in the charter? > > Ross > > > > > > -- /Loa mobile + 46 739 81 21 64 email: loa@pi.se From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri May 30 16:02:23 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25518 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:02:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4UK1tM32749 for l3vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:01:55 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UK1tB32746 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:01:55 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25493 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lq2u-0000qJ-00 for l3vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:00:12 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lq2u-0000qF-00 for l3vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:00:12 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UK1VB32724; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:01:31 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UJwlB32560 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:58:47 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25393 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lpzt-0000oe-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:57:05 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lpzs-0000oa-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 15:57:05 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 19Lq1U-00032e-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 19:58:45 +0000 Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:58:26 -0700 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62i) Personal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <147580607259.20030530125826@psg.com> To: l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Draft charter for L3VPN: inter-AS/inter-provider Resent-from: Alex Zinin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 19:58:45 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: l3vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l3vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [should have been posted here, not the ppvpn list] Ross, Friday, May 16, 2003, 11:32:23 AM, Ross Callon wrote: [...] > My understanding is that this discussion is still related to what goes into > the proposed charter for the Layer 3 VPN working group. In this context > we don't have to solve the problem right now, we just need to decide > what goes into the charter. Agreed [...] > To me whether to insist on the inter-AS case being solved and fully > documented before progressing the solutions documents comes down > to three things: (i) How important are the multi-AS cases; and (ii) How > confident are we that if we postpone the multi-AS work, that we > won't end up with a situation where we wish that we had changed the > base documents; and (iii) How long will it take to fully document the > inter-AS cases? Very true > A question for Alex and Thomas Narten: Suppose hypothetically that > there is consensus to work on the inter-AS cases, and suppose that > we don't want to slow down the base documents to wait for this to > complete. In this case, the L3 VPN working group might work on > progressing existing documents (the long list from the proposed > charter that Alex sent out) as a high priority item, and work on the > inter-AS cases as a lower priority. In this case, would we want to > explicitly mention the Inter-AS cases in the charter? This would be reasonable, I think. I will follow up on Loa's message too. Alex From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri May 30 16:14:27 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25991 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:14:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4UKDxH01927 for l3vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:13:59 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UKDxB01924 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:13:59 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25971 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:13:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LqEb-0000xw-00 for l3vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:12:17 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LqEa-0000xt-00 for l3vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:12:16 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UKDkB01906; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:13:46 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UKApB01707 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:10:51 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25871 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LqBY-0000wa-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:09:08 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LqBX-0000wX-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 16:09:07 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 19LqD9-0004GR-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 20:10:48 +0000 Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 13:10:29 -0700 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62i) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <123581329858.20030530131029@psg.com> To: l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Draft charter for L3VPN: inter-AS/inter-provider In-Reply-To: <3ED32CD4.6020802@pi.se> References: <4.3.2.20030516140719.028fab60@zircon.juniper.net> <3ED32CD4.6020802@pi.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: l3vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l3vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I like this idea. I think we should list Loa's suggested deployment scenarios in the charter and couple the WG tasks + milestones to them. The updated charter should be ready next week. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin/ Tuesday, May 27, 2003, 2:16:04 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Ross, > thinking about this I believe that there are four different scenarios: > - single provider / single AS > - single provider / multiple AS > - multiple co-operating providers / multiple AS > - Internet > I would like any solution for the L3 VPN to work in all these > scenarions. Having said this I also recognize that there is a > difference on possible level of service in the different scenarios. > While an L3VPN across the Internet will be a best effort service, > the same service in the single provider / single AS might give you > absolute QoS guarantees. > So I my take is that we need to be open recognize all these scenarios > in the charter, but would like to see i clear priority. > My personal priority today would be: > 1. Internet > 2. single provider / single AS > 3. multiple co-operating providers / multiple AS > 4. single provider / multiple AS > Where priority 1 and 2 is a photo finish decision. > /Loa > Ross Callon wrote: >> At 10:02 AM 5/12/2003 -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: >> >>>... The inter-AS >>>solution must has enough details from the very beginning to >>>demonstrate that there is a a backwards compatible migration path >> >>>from intra-provider to inter-provider. >> >>>Yakov. >> >> >> My understanding is that this discussion is still related to what goes into >> the proposed charter for the Layer 3 VPN working group. In this context >> we don't have to solve the problem right now, we just need to decide >> what goes into the charter. >> >> My personal view is that multi-AS one-provider is important enough that >> it is worth mentioning in the charter. Multi-AS, multi-provider is probably >> also something that we want to have as a possible option. Thus I think >> that we might as well mention these in the charter. >> >> I am not so sure about slowing down the base documents in order to >> get the multi-AS cases fully fleshed out. We have already slowed down >> the base documents to wait to finish the Framework and Requirements >> documents, and there is the possibility of slowing them down to wait >> for a security document. >> >> To me whether to insist on the inter-AS case being solved and fully >> documented before progressing the solutions documents comes down >> to three things: (i) How important are the multi-AS cases; and (ii) How >> confident are we that if we postpone the multi-AS work, that we >> won't end up with a situation where we wish that we had changed the >> base documents; and (iii) How long will it take to fully document the >> inter-AS cases? >> >> A question for Alex and Thomas Narten: Suppose hypothetically that >> there is consensus to work on the inter-AS cases, and suppose that >> we don't want to slow down the base documents to wait for this to >> complete. In this case, the L3 VPN working group might work on >> progressing existing documents (the long list from the proposed >> charter that Alex sent out) as a high priority item, and work on the >> inter-AS cases as a lower priority. In this case, would we want to >> explicitly mention the Inter-AS cases in the charter? >> >> Ross >> >> >> >> >> >> From mailnull@www1.ietf.org Fri May 30 17:09:44 2003 Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28426 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4UL9Iw07248 for l3vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:09:18 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UL9IB07245 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:09:18 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28390 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lr66-0001dh-00 for l3vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:07:34 -0400 Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lr65-0001de-00 for l3vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:07:33 -0400 Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UL64B06230; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:06:04 -0400 Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4UL57B06193 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:05:07 -0400 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28299 for ; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:05:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lr24-0001cB-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:03:24 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Lr23-0001c8-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 17:03:23 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=127.0.0.1) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 19Lr3f-0009br-00 for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2003 21:05:03 +0000 Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 14:04:29 -0700 From: Alex Zinin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62i) Personal Reply-To: Alex Zinin X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <36584570588.20030530140429@psg.com> To: l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Draft charter for L3VPN: Internet transparency In-Reply-To: <3EC294E2.6030807@acm.org> References: <200305141432.h4EEWunt016683@rtp-core-1.cisco.com> <3EC294E2.6030807@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: l3vpn-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: l3vpn-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My reading of this thread and the related discussion on inter-AS/ inter-provider subject is that over-the-Internet VPN scenarios should be included in the charter, though we should recognize that some technologies maybe best suited for a limited set of cooperating providers. Alex