From l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org Tue Oct 09 05:27:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBIE-0008MU-WB; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:22:23 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBID-0008JX-KT for l3vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:22:21 -0400 Received: from smtp3.smtp.bt.com ([217.32.164.138]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfBI7-0007rI-Dq for l3vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:22:21 -0400 Received: from E03MVY1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.59]) by smtp3.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:22:09 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:19:53 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01 Thread-Index: AcgKVYz7BarF4ddpSZG00Ex3c2ZEJw== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2007 09:22:09.0982 (UTC) FILETIME=[DE668DE0:01C80A55] X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Subject: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l3vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org Colleagues, For your information we have posted a new version of draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations to the I-D repository, see below for the abstract. This version updates the -00 version with an expanded section on Inter-AS and a section discussing co-located RPs along with several minor updates & corrections. The authors would welcome any comments or feedback on the draft. Abstract: The current proposal for multicast in BGP/MPLS includes multiple alternative mechanisms for some of the required building blocks of the solution. The aim of this document is to leverage previously documented requirements to identify the key elements and help move forward solution design, toward the definition of a standard having a well defined set of mandatory procedures. The different proposed alternative mechanisms are examined in the light of requirements identified for multicast in L3VPNs, and suggestions are made about which of these mechanisms standardization should favor. Issues related to existing deployments of early implementations are also addressed. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-consideration s-01.txt Ben --=20 Ben Niven-Jenkins Technical Consultant - Network Architecture, BT =20 E-mail: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com=20 Office: +44 (0)1473 648225 Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205 Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827 From l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org Thu Oct 11 10:47:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfzF3-0005ro-RX; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:42:25 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfzF3-0005qo-2n for l3vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:42:25 -0400 Received: from rutherford.zen.co.uk ([212.23.3.142]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfzF2-00007b-Fg for l3vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:42:25 -0400 Received: from [88.96.235.138] (helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by rutherford.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IfzEz-0006rN-Ka for l3vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:42:21 +0000 Received: from your029b8cecfe ([81.140.15.32] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:42:21 +0100 Message-ID: <0c6d01c80c14$eb5effd0$5102010a@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , References: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:41:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2007 14:42:21.0304 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE112780:01C80C14] X-Originating-Rutherford-IP: [88.96.235.138] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Cc: Subject: Re: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: l3vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org Hi Ben, This draft is shaping up well, I think and will (hopefully) give the intended guidance. Although security issues are mentioned in a few places in the I-D, I think it would be helpful to pull them together and give them a little more attention in the Security Considerations section. Based on the security requirements from RFC4834 (sections 5.1.5 and 5.2.8) what basic security building blocks are required? Which of the options can provide the right level of security, and which will struggle? Note that this might mean moving the "Summary of recommendations" section to after the "Security considerations" section. The alternative is to give security its own subsection of section 3. Its difficult for me to say, as I don't run a network, but I would also have expected more focus on manageability. Again, there are some references to OAM and a few to various management tasks, but I don't see an overall view of what the management functional building blocks are and which solutions can provide them. Also a possible subsection of section 3? I know it would be more helpful if I actually wrote some text for you, but you can't have everything in life, can you? Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:19 AM Subject: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01 Colleagues, For your information we have posted a new version of draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations to the I-D repository, see below for the abstract. This version updates the -00 version with an expanded section on Inter-AS and a section discussing co-located RPs along with several minor updates & corrections. The authors would welcome any comments or feedback on the draft. Abstract: The current proposal for multicast in BGP/MPLS includes multiple alternative mechanisms for some of the required building blocks of the solution. The aim of this document is to leverage previously documented requirements to identify the key elements and help move forward solution design, toward the definition of a standard having a well defined set of mandatory procedures. The different proposed alternative mechanisms are examined in the light of requirements identified for multicast in L3VPNs, and suggestions are made about which of these mechanisms standardization should favor. Issues related to existing deployments of early implementations are also addressed. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-consideration s-01.txt Ben -- Ben Niven-Jenkins Technical Consultant - Network Architecture, BT E-mail: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com Office: +44 (0)1473 648225 Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205 Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827 From l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 12 12:22:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgNDF-0002Fy-3M; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:18:09 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgNDD-0002Ep-Go for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:18:07 -0400 Received: from smtp2.smtp.bt.com ([217.32.164.150]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgNDC-00070t-Ut for l3vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:18:07 -0400 Received: from E03MVY1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.30.59]) by smtp2.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:18:05 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:18:13 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <0c6d01c80c14$eb5effd0$5102010a@your029b8cecfe> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01 Thread-Index: AcgMFo+zTr9qpswuTKS5sRlz/YmOYgA0zFhg From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2007 16:18:05.0829 (UTC) FILETIME=[787BDB50:01C80CEB] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8 Subject: RE: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: l3vpn.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Ben, >=20 > This draft is shaping up well, I think and will (hopefully) > give the intended guidance. Adrian, thanks for the comments. Personally my motivation (I wouldn't like to speak for my co-authors) for the draft is to try and influence draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast so that it mandates a base set of mandatory options in order to aid interoperability (as it stands two implementations could claim conformance while implementing completely different options). Therefore I see draft-morin as transitory. As draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast does not discuss security or management neither does draft-morin. However, the areas you highlight are important in a more general sense and I will discuss them with my co-authors for possible inclusion in a future version of the draft. Thanks Ben > Although security issues are mentioned in a few places in the > I-D, I think it would be helpful to pull them together and > give them a little more attention in the Security > Considerations section. Based on the security requirements > from RFC4834 (sections 5.1.5 and 5.2.8) what basic security > building blocks are required? Which of the options can > provide the right level of security, and which will struggle? >=20 > Note that this might mean moving the "Summary of > recommendations" section to after the "Security > considerations" section. The alternative is to give security > its own subsection of section 3. >=20 > Its difficult for me to say, as I don't run a network, but I > would also have expected more focus on manageability. Again, > there are some references to OAM and a few to various > management tasks, but I don't see an overall view of what the > management functional building blocks are and which solutions > can provide them. Also a possible subsection of section 3? >=20 > I know it would be more helpful if I actually wrote some text > for you, but you can't have everything in life, can you? >=20 > Cheers, > Adrian >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:19 AM > Subject: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01 >=20 >=20 > Colleagues, >=20 > For your information we have posted a new version of > draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations to the I-D repository, see > below for the abstract.=20 >=20 > This version updates the -00 version with an expanded section on > Inter-AS and a section discussing co-located RPs along with several > minor updates & corrections.=20 >=20 > The authors would welcome any comments or feedback on the draft. >=20 > Abstract: > The current proposal for multicast in BGP/MPLS includes multiple > alternative mechanisms for some of the required building blocks of the > solution. The aim of this document is to leverage previously > documented requirements to identify the key elements and help move > forward solution > design, toward the definition of a standard having a well > defined set of > mandatory procedures. The different proposed alternative > mechanisms are > examined in the light of requirements identified for multicast in > L3VPNs, and suggestions are made about which of these mechanisms > standardization should favor. Issues related to existing > deployments of > early implementations are also addressed. >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-con > sideration s-01.txt=20 >=20 >=20 > Ben