Subject: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:19:53 +0100

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: [email-masked] 
Office: +44 (0)1473 648225
Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205
   Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:41:57 +0100

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: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:19 AM
Subject: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01

Colleagues,

Abstract:

Ben

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:18:13 +0100

Adrian Farrel <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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
> 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
> 
> draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations to the I-D repository, see
> below for the abstract. 
> 
> solution.  The aim of this document is to leverage previously
> documented requirements to identify the key elements and help move
> forward solution
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-con
> sideration s-01.txt 
> 
> 
> Ben