From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Wed Jan 5 10:44:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609AF3A6C39 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:44:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.665 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.666, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PBuWnEB5C7NG for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:44:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 904513A6BE9 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:44:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=dhcp-122-devlan.cachelogic.com) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PaYNw-0007IA-VP; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:47:01 +0000 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: L3VPN agenda slots at IETF80 (aka does L3VPN need to meet)? Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:46:59 +0000 Message-Id: To: l3vpn@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:44:55 -0000 Colleagues, Registration for IETF80 is now open and as I mentioned in my e-mail to = the mailing list on 16th November last year, we will take a different = approach to building the L3VPN agenda to what we have done in the past. If you would like a slot at IETF80 can you please respond to this = message including at least the chairs & Daniel King (cc'd) with details = of the topic/draft you would like to cover and the amount of time you = would like to request. Please send your requests by midnight PST on 19th January. After the 19th the WG chairs will assess whether there are enough = requests to justify requesting a meeting slot at IETF80 or whether = mailing list discussion or a virtual interim meeting is a more suitable = method for progressing those pieces of work. Thanks Ben =20 From peterk@ipinfusion.com Wed Jan 12 21:05:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AFE3A6A40 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:05:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P6o9YX2ZVLsm for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:05:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783823A68AF for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:05:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17so582412gwj.31 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.99.12 with SMTP id w12mr2069971agb.192.1294895290870; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:08:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from PETERKE6410 (h-64-105-174-211.snvacaid.static.covad.net [64.105.174.211]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d15sm1696890ana.35.2011.01.12.21.08.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:08:09 -0800 (PST) From: "Peter Kao" To: References: Subject: Open invitation to BGP/PB L3VPN & BGP/PBB L3VPN discussion thread Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:08:02 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcutCPMYK7ltHaetQAKf8P1Ak5dUjwF1Bfmg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 05:05:52 -0000 Dear Colleagues, L3VPN working group, I have recently submitted three drafts for standards track consideration; http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kao-pb-l3vpn-00 This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an IEEE 802.1ad PBN (Provider Bridge Network) to provide IP Virtual Private Network Service for its customers. This method extends the BGP/MPLS IP VPN service to allow IP VPN service to be offered using a PBN instead. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kao-pbb-l3vpn-00 This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an IEEE 802.1ah PBBN (Provider Backbone Bridge Network) to provide IP Virtual Private Network Service for its customers. This method extends the BGP/MPLS IP VPN service to allow IP VPN service to be offered using a PBN instead. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kao-path-binding-bgp4-00 When BGP is used to distribute a route, it can also be used to distribute a Link Layer PATH_NEXT_HOP binding which is mapped to that route such that packets to that network route can be switched directly across an Ethernet switched network. The motivation for using PB/PBB rather than an MPLS core for IP/VPN is as follows - As flat mobile networks (4G/LTE, mobile WiMAX, HSPA+ flat, and UMB) emerge, IP routing is being pushed more and more from the Metro Core towards the Metro Access and Aggregation networks to provide support for single IP-RAN and any-to-any IP connectivity between base stations. The current, existing Metro Ethernet Backhaul infrastructure in place based on PB can't support routed flat mobile network with any-to-any IP connectivity, it just can't do routing. As such, IPMPLSForum20.0.0 proposed an all MPLS access/aggregation/core network solution to support flat mobile networks with L3VPN capability. The submitted drafts propose a way to enable existing and new Metro PB switched access/aggregation networks with IETF RFC4364 L3VPN capability for the emerging flat mobile networks and converged Metro transport with L1, L2, and L3 support. Cordially, I would like to invite you to an open discussion on the mailing list and give all of us a precious opportunity to hear your feedback and thoughts. Thx & Regards, Ares, P., Kao peterk@ipinfusion.com From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Thu Jan 27 03:55:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F32828C125 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 03:55:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.556, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ibzuxPoo0JY4 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 03:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8380B3A69AF for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 03:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=dhcp-113-devlan.cachelogic.com) by mail11.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PiQV5-00005O-0M; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:58:55 +0000 Subject: L3VPN will not meet at IETF80 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:58:53 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Ben Niven-Jenkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:55:53 -0000 Colleagues, We only received requests from two people to present at IETF80 so = Marshall and I have decided there is not the critical mass required to = request a face 2 face session. The two requests we received were: 1) Wim & John Drake asked to present the entropy label draft and how to = apply it to L3VPNs. However, they also plan to present the draft in the = MPLS WG. 2) Peter Kao asked to present 3 drafts on L3VPNs[1] using a layer 2 = PB/PBB core. These are new (-00) drafts and haven't seen any discussion = on the mailing list yet. We'd encourage folks to read those drafts and = discuss them on the mailing list.=20 Regards Ben [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kao-pb-l3vpn-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kao-pbb-l3vpn-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kao-path-binding-bgp4-00 On 5 Jan 2011, at 18:46, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Colleagues, >=20 > Registration for IETF80 is now open and as I mentioned in my e-mail to = the mailing list on 16th November last year, we will take a different = approach to building the L3VPN agenda to what we have done in the past. >=20 > If you would like a slot at IETF80 can you please respond to this = message including at least the chairs & Daniel King (cc'd) with details = of the topic/draft you would like to cover and the amount of time you = would like to request. >=20 > Please send your requests by midnight PST on 19th January. >=20 > After the 19th the WG chairs will assess whether there are enough = requests to justify requesting a meeting slot at IETF80 or whether = mailing list discussion or a virtual interim meeting is a more suitable = method for progressing those pieces of work. >=20 > Thanks > Ben >=20 >=20 >=20