From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Fri Mar 11 11:45:03 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 73BC83A6A2E; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:45:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 4mZ6v0QupE00; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4AB3A69CA; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:45:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-03.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12 Message-ID: <20110311194502.6998.2669.idtracker@localhost> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:45:02 -0800 Cc: 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: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:45:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP ACCEPT_OWN Community Attribute Author(s) : J. Uttaro, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-03.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2011-03-11 Under certain conditions it is desirable for a BGP route reflector to be able to modify the Route Target list of a VPN route that is distributed by the route reflector, enabling the route reflector to control how a route originated within one VRF is imported into other VRFs. This technique works effectively as long as the VRF that exports the route is not on the same PE as the VRF(s) that import the route. However, due to the constraints of the BGP protocol, it does not work if the two are on the same PE. This document describes a modification to the BGP protocol allowing this technique to work when the VRFs are on the same PE, allowing the technique to be used in a standard manner throughout an autonomous system. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-03-11114000.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Sat Mar 12 11:45:04 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 2A8473A6A7D; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:45:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 2w9zkuhQSllg; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318B23A68CB; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:45:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.12 Message-ID: <20110312194502.14706.64779.idtracker@localhost> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:45:02 -0800 Cc: 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: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:45:04 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : OSPFv3 as a PE-CE routing protocol Author(s) : P. Pillay-Esnault, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2011-03-12 Many Service Providers (SPs) offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers using a technique in which Customer Edge (CE) routers are routing peers of Provider Edge (PE) routers. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. This is known as a "BGP/MPLS IP VPN". Originally only IPv4 was supported and it was later extended to support IPv6 VPNs as well. Extensions were later added for the support of the Open Shortest Path First protocol version 2 (OSPFv2) as a PE-CE routing protocol for the IPv4 VPNs. This document extends those specifications to support OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) as a PE-CE routing protocol. The OSPFv3 PE-CE functionality is identical to that of OSPFv2 except for the differences described in this document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-03-12114300.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Wed Mar 16 00:42:56 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 267C93A682D; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:42:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.663 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 lnHQYTcLPW0p; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC2D3A6826; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc22-cmbg15-2-0-cust173.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.27.176.174] helo=[192.168.0.203]) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PzlP1-0006Ef-E4; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:44:19 +0000 Subject: Joint L3VPN & OSPF WG LC for draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07 From: Benjamin Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <0636D1EB-942D-4416-858E-E698863B141C@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:44:17 +0000 To: L3VPN WG mailing list , ospf@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 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, 16 Mar 2011 07:42:56 -0000 L3VPNers & OSPFers, You may recall that back in January 2010 we pulled = draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-04 out of the RFC Editor's queue because we = had forgotten to solicit a review from the OSPF WG. See = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf/current/msg05658.htm for more = info on that. The OSPF WG raised some comments on the draft, which has gone through a = few revisions and draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07 is thought to address = all the previous comments raised. This e-mail is therefore the start of a joint L3VPN & OSPF WG Last Call = for the updated draft. It is restricted to changes made since the last = review (i.e. changes between -04 and -07). Due to the proximity of IETF80 we are allowing 4 weeks for the LC. = Please provide any further comments on the changes by midnight PDT on = the 13th April 2011. You can view -07 of the draft here: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07.txt You can view a diff between -04 and -07 here: = http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=3Ddraft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-04&url2=3D= draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07 Thanks Ben (on behalf of the L3VPN & OSPF chairs) From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Mon Mar 21 16:08:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietf.org Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 14D063A68F7; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:08:48 -0700 (PDT) From: IESG Secretary To: IETF Announcement list Subject: WG Action: RECHARTER: Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (l3vpn) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20110321230849.14D063A68F7@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Cc: tme@multicasttech.com, l3vpn@ietf.org, danny@tcb.net 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: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:08:49 -0000 The Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (l3vpn) working group in the Routing Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or the working group Chairs. Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (l3vpn) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Active Working Group Last updated: 2011-03-14 Chairs: Danny McPherson Marshall Eubanks Ben Niven-Jenkins Routing Area Directors: Stewart Bryant Adrian Farrel Routing Area Advisor: Stewart Bryant Mailing lists: Address: l3vpn@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/ Description of Working Group: This working group is responsible for defining, specifying and extending BGP/MPLS IP VPNs solutions (based on RFC4364 and RFC4659) for supporting provider-provisioned Layer-3 (routed) Virtual Private Networks (L3VPNs). The WG will continue to extend and enhance RFC4364 and RFC4659 based solutions so that these solutions can be used to provide IPv4, IPv6, and MPLS services including multicast. The following VPN deployment scenarios will be considered by the WG: 1. Single service provider (SP)/single AS: VPN sites attached to the network of a single provider within the scope of a single AS. 2. Single SP/multiple AS'es: VPN sites attached to the network of a single provider consisting of multiple AS'es. 3. Cooperating SPs: VPN sites attached to networks of different providers that cooperate with each other to provide VPN service. As part of this effort the WG will work on the following tasks: 1. Additional requirements and framework for Layer 3 VPNs. 2. Solution documents, including applicability statements. 3. MIB definitions. 4. Security mechanisms. As a general rule, the WG will not create new protocols, but will extend existing protocols to provide the necessary L3VPN functionality. Protocol extensions that provide L3VPN functionality will be reviewed by both the L3VPN WG and by the WG responsible for the protocol being extended. The WG will continue to extend and enhance the Multicast over BGP/MPLS VPN solution. Goals & Milestones: Done Submit MVPNv6 using PIM & S-PMSIs specification to IESG as PS. Done Submit IPv6 MVPN infrastructure address encoding document to IESG for publication as PS. Apr-11 Submit specification for using Internal BGP as PE-CE protocol to IESG as PS May-11 Submit S-PMSI A-D route Wildcard selection specification to IESG as PS. Nov-11 Submit MVPN Extranet specification to IESG as PS. From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Tue Mar 22 17:01:49 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 6712328C180 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:01:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.284 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.284 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=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 6pO354KgAKx8 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07ACA28C16D for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc22-cmbg15-2-0-cust173.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.27.176.174] helo=[192.168.0.202]) by mail11.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q2BXk-0004Xm-PB for l3vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:03:21 +0000 Subject: Fwd: WG Review: Recharter of Softwires (softwire) References: <20110321212944.80DA33A68DD@core3.amsl.com> From: Benjamin Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:03:19 +0000 To: L3VPN WG mailing list Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 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, 23 Mar 2011 00:01:49 -0000 Colleagues, FYI the SOFTWIRE WG is rechartering and the new charter explicitly = mentions seeking review from L3VPN on proposed work around mesh softwire = topologies. If you have any comments on the proposed charter or its = scope please send them to the IESG mailing list as per the instructions = below. Ben Begin forwarded message: > From: IESG Secretary > Date: 21 March 2011 21:29:44 GMT > To: IETF Announcement list > Cc: softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, adurand@juniper.net > Subject: WG Review: Recharter of Softwires (softwire)=20 > Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org >=20 > A modified charter has been submitted for the Softwires (softwire) > working group in the Internet Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made = any > determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for > informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG > mailing list (iesg@ietf.org) by Tuesday, March 29, 2011. >=20 > Softwires (softwire) > --------------------------------------------------- > Current Status: Active Working Group >=20 > Chairs: > Alain Durand > Yong Cui >=20 > Internet Area Directors: > Ralph Droms > Jari Arkko >=20 > Internet Area Advisor: > Ralph Droms >=20 > Mailing Lists: > General Discussion: softwires@ietf.org > To Subscribe: softwires-request@ietf.org > Archive: =20 > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/maillist.html >=20 > Description of Working Group: >=20 > The Softwires Working Group is specifying the standardization of > discovery, control and encapsulation methods for connecting IPv4 > networks across IPv6 networks and IPv6 networks across IPv4 networks > in a way that will encourage multiple, inter-operable > implementations. >=20 > For various reasons, native IPv4 and/or IPv6 transport may not be > available in all cases, and there is a need to tunnel IPv4 in IPv6 > or IPv6 in IPv4 to cross a part of the network which is not IPv4 or > IPv6 capable. The Softwire Problem Statement, RFC 4925, identifies > two distinct topological scenarios that the WG will provide > solutions for: "Hubs and Spokes" and "Mesh." In the former case, > hosts or "stub" networks are attached via individual, > point-to-point, IPv4 over IPv6 or IPv6 over IPv4 softwires to a > centralized Softwire Concentrator. In the latter case (Mesh), > network islands of one Address Family (IPv4 or IPv6) are connected > over a network of another Address Family via point to multi-point > softwires among Address family Border Routers (AFBRs). >=20 > The WG will reuse existing technologies as much as possible and only > when necessary, create additional protocol building blocks. >=20 > For generality, all base Softwires encapsulation mechanisms should > support all combinations of IP versions over one other (IPv4 over > IPv6, IPv6 over IPv4, IPv4 over IPv4, IPv6 over IPv6). IPv4 to IPv6 > translation mechanisms (NAT-PT), new addressing schemes, and block > address assignments are out of scope. DHCP options developed in this > working group will be reviewed jointly with the DHC WG. RADIUS > attributes developed in this working group will be reviewed jointly > with the RADEXT WG. The MIB Doctors directorate will be asked to > review any MIB modules developed in the SOFTWIRE working group. BGP > and other routing and signaling protocols developed in this group > will be reviewed jointly with the proper working groups and other > workings that may take interest (e.g. IDR, L3VPN, PIM, LDP, SAAG, > etc). >=20 > The specific work areas for this working group are: >=20 > 1. Developments for Mesh softwires topology; the Mesh topology work > will be reviewed in the l3vpn and idr WGs > - multicast > - MIB module >=20 > 2. Developments for 6rd: > - multicast > - operational specification > - RADIUS option for 6rd server > - MIB module >=20 > 3. Developments for Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite): > - multicast > - operational specification > - RADIUS option for AFTR > - proxy extensions; GI-DS-Lite; DS-Lite with no NAT or NAT on the > B4 element > - MIB module >=20 > 4. Finalize discovery and configuration mechanisms for a gateway to > use DS-Lite or 6rd; these discovery and configuration mechanisms > must take into a account other operating environments such as > dual-stack and tunneling mechanisms not defined by the softwire > WG. Development of new mechanisms will involve the dhc and/or > v6ops WGs as appropriate >=20 > Other work items would require WG approval and rechartering. >=20 > Goals and Milestones: > Apr 2011 Submit DS-lite RADIUS option for Proposed Standard > Apr 2011 Adopt DS-lite operational document as WG document > Jul 2011 Submit 6rd RADIUS option for Proposed Standard > Jul 2011 Submit GI DS-lite for Proposed Standard > Jul 2011 Adopt B4NAT as WG document > Aug 2011 Adopt 6rd operational document as WG document > Aug 2011 Adopt Multicast extensions document as WG document > Aug 2011 Submit DS-lite operational document for Informational > Sep 2011 Submit B4NAT for Informational > Nov 2011 Submit Multicast extensions document for Informational > Nov 2011 Submit 6rd operational document for Informational > Nov 2011 Adopt 6rd MIB module as WG document > Nov 2011 Adopt DS-lite MIB module as WG document > Nov 2011 Adopt Mesh topology MIB module as WG document > Nov 2012 Submit 6rd MIB module for Proposed Standard > Nov 2012 Submit DS-lite MIB module for Proposed Standard > Nov 2012 Submit Mesh topology MIB module for Proposed Standard >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From xuxh@huawei.com Tue Mar 22 19:31:31 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 B1E7728C0D8 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:31:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.012 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.181, BAYES_40=-0.185, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 hyZxIVQrolO4 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96333A6876 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LIH00FGHOESOD@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for l3vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:32:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LIH005Y2OES8Z@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for l3vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:32:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.145]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LIH00IHGOER3H@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for l3vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:32:52 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:40:44 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: A proposal of intra-subnet L3VPN service for cloud data center interconnection To: l3vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <002601cbe903$b57330b0$91626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_NvO2utHL35QxVYv2D7H/XQ)" Thread-index: AcvpA7UmEBELIAsvTfOL0LnWFEkSbQ== 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, 23 Mar 2011 02:31:32 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_NvO2utHL35QxVYv2D7H/XQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, =20 Virtual Subnet ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04) is a special = L3VPN functionality which uses the existing BGP/MPLS IP VPN protocol [RFC4364] = to build a scalable intra-subnet L3VPN service for cloud data center interconnection (Thanks L2VPN co-chair Giles Heron for his wise = suggestion of the name =A1=B0intra-subnet L3VPN service=A1=B1). =20 I had presented this draft on the L2VPN WG session in Beijing (see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/l2vpn-3.ppt) and received many valuable comments and suggestions. As this draft is mainly involved with BGP/MPLS IP VPN technology, L2VPN WG co-chairs suggested discussing it = in L3VPN WG.=20 =20 L3VPN is not meeting in Prague. Hence I would like to discuss it on the mailing list according to the suggestion from L3VPN co-chairs.=20 =20 The basic idea of Virtual Subnet is: PE routers use the existing = BGP/MPLS IP VPN protocol to exchange their own CE host routes which are = automatically generated from the ARP entries of their local CE hosts. In this way, = many virtual subnets across the MPLS/IP backbone can be constructed. Since = the ARP broadcast domain and unknown unicast flooding domain of a single subnet/LAN are segmented into multiple parts, the ARP broadcast and = unknown unicast flooding will be limited within each VPN site scope. As a = result, this data center interconnection solution could scale well without the concern of serious broadcast flooding impacts caused by large scale = subnets. =20 Any comments and suggestions are much appreciated. =20 Best wishes, Xiaohu =20 -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: IETF I-D Submission Tool = [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C224=C8=D5 12:13 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: xuxh@huawei.com =D6=F7=CC=E2: New Version Notification for draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04 =20 =20 A new version of I-D, draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04.txt has been = successfully submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the IETF repository. =20 Filename: draft-xu-virtual-subnet Revision: 04 Title: Virtual Subnet: A Scalable Data Center Network = Architecture Creation_date: 2011-01-24 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 13 =20 Abstract: This document proposes a new IP-only L2VPN solution which uses=20 BGP/MPLS IP VPN technology [RFC4364] with some extensions, together=20 with some other proven technologies including ARP proxy=20 [RFC925][RFC1027] to provide a more scalable IP-only L2VPN services=20 across a MPLS/IP backbone. This solution is intended to be a=20 scalable data center network architecture which can be deployed=20 today as an alternative to the spanning tree protocol bridge=20 technology. =20 =20 =20 The IETF Secretariat. =20 --Boundary_(ID_NvO2utHL35QxVYv2D7H/XQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = all,

 

Virtual Subnet (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04= ) is a special L3VPN functionality which uses the existing BGP/MPLS IP VPN = protocol [RFC4364] to build a scalable intra-subnet L3VPN service for cloud data = center interconnection (Thanks L2VPN co-chair Giles Heron for his wise = suggestion of the name =A1=B0intra-subnet L3VPN service=A1=B1).

 

I had presented this draft on the L2VPN WG session in Beijing (see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/l2vpn-3.ppt= ) and received many valuable comments and suggestions. As this draft is mainly involved = with BGP/MPLS IP VPN technology, L2VPN WG co-chairs suggested discussing it = in L3VPN WG.

 

L3VPN is not meeting in Prague. Hence I would like to discuss it on the mailing list according to the = suggestion from L3VPN co-chairs.

 

The basic idea of = Virtual Subnet is: PE routers use the existing BGP/MPLS IP VPN protocol to exchange their own = CE host routes which are automatically generated from the ARP entries of their = local CE hosts. In this way, many virtual subnets across the MPLS/IP backbone can = be constructed. Since the ARP broadcast domain and unknown unicast flooding domain of a = single subnet/LAN are segmented into multiple parts, the ARP broadcast and unknown unicast = flooding will be limited within each VPN site scope. As a result, this data = center interconnection solution could scale well without the concern of serious = broadcast flooding impacts caused by large scale = subnets.

 

Any comments and suggestions are much = appreciated.

 

Best wishes,

Xiaohu

 

-----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD= =BC=FE-----

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: = IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org]

=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4= : 2011=C4=EA1=D4=C224=C8=D5 12:13

=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: xuxh@huawei.com

=D6=F7=CC=E2: New Version Notification for = draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04

 

 

A new version of I-D, draft-xu-virtual-subnet-04.txt has been successfully = submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the IETF = repository.

 

Filename:=20 draft-xu-virtual-subnet

Revision:=20 04

Title:  &nbs= p;    =20 Virtual Subnet: A Scalable Data Center Network Architecture

Creation_date: &n= bsp;  =20 2011-01-24

WG = ID:       =20 Independent Submission

Number_of_pages: 13

 

Abstract:

This document proposes a new IP-only L2VPN solution which uses =

BGP/MPLS IP VPN technology [RFC4364] with some extensions, together =

with some other proven technologies including ARP proxy =

[RFC925][RFC1027] to provide a more scalable IP-only L2VPN services =

across a MPLS/IP backbone. This solution is intended to be a =

scalable data center network architecture which can be deployed =

today as an alternative to the spanning tree protocol bridge =

technology.=

   &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;    

 

 

The IETF Secretariat.

 

--Boundary_(ID_NvO2utHL35QxVYv2D7H/XQ)-- From zubair.ahmad@orange-ftgroup.com Thu Mar 24 10:05:32 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 301E73A67FC for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:05:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.85 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083] 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 XWbZCf4JK-z8 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:05:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED96828C0E1 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id D030B2DC252 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:07:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from PWEXCB10.usa.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.112.0.68]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8A3224C024 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:07:03 +0100 (CET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CBEA45.E5254C96" Subject: MPLS 2011 Conference - Call for Presentation Proposals Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:07:02 -0400 Message-ID: <5116_1300986423_4D8B7A37_5116_75361_1_7C5C5ED440632B4DAE601971324975F50347CC37@PWEXCB10.usa.francetelecom.fr> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: MPLS 2011 Conference - Call for Presentation Proposals Thread-Index: AcvqReTJHGszamUPRF+FIpNHV2sN8w== From: To: X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.395186, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.3.24.162416 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, 24 Mar 2011 17:05:32 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBEA45.E5254C96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, The MPLS 2011 International Conference, the 14th Annual International Conference on MPLS and Related Technologies, will be held October 16 - 19, 2011, in Washington, DC. The Technical Program Committee is soliciting abstracts summarizing a proposed presentation representing original/unpublished work covering cutting-edge topics. Presentations covering new technologies and operational experience are solicited from network equipment vendors, service/transport providers, government agencies, the research community, and enterprise users. The deadline for submission of presentation proposals is April 29, 2011. If you want further information on MPLS 2011 or want to submit a presentation abstract, please see the following URL: http://www.isocore.com/mpls2011/call_for_papers/cfp.htm =20 Many of these topics have been of interest to members of L3VPN WG in the past, and several people active on this list have been presenters at the past events. Regards, Zubair Member, Technical Program Committee - MPLS 2011 Conference ***************************************************************************= ***** IMPORTANT.Les informations contenues dans ce message electronique y compris= les fichiers attaches sont strictement confidentielles et peuvent etre protegees par la loi. Ce message electronique est destine exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) men= tionne(s) ci-dessus. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur ou s il ne vous est pas destine, ve= uillez immediatement le signaler a l expediteur et effacer ce message=20 et tous les fichiers eventuellement attaches. Toute lecture, exploitation ou transmission des informations contenues dans= ce message est interdite. Tout message electronique est susceptible d alteration. A ce titre, le Groupe France Telecom decline toute responsabilite notamment= s il a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. De meme, il appartient au destinataire de s assurer de l absence de tout vi= rus. IMPORTANT.This e-mail message and any attachments are strictly confidential= and may be protected by law. This message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(= s), please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message. Any unauthorized view, usage or disclosure ofthis message is prohibited. Since e-mail messages may not be reliable, France Telecom Group shall not b= e liable for any message if modified, changed or falsified. Additionally the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. ***************************************************************************= ***** ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBEA45.E5254C96 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear=20 All,

The MPLS 2011 International Conference, the = 14th=20 Annual International Conference on MPLS and Related Technologies, will be h= eld=20 October 16 - 19, 2011, in Washington, DC. The Technical Program Committee i= s=20 soliciting abstracts summarizing a proposed presentation representing=20 original/unpublished work covering cutting-edge topics.

Presentations covering new technologies and= =20 operational experience are solicited from network equipment vendors,=20 service/transport providers, government agencies, the research community, a= nd=20 enterprise users.

The deadline for submission of presentation = proposals=20 is April 29, 2011.

If you want further information on MPLS 2011= or want=20 to submit a presentation abstract, please see the following URL:

http://www.isocore.com/mpls2011/call_for_papers/cfp.htm=

Many of these topics have been of interest t= o members=20 of L3VPN WG in the past, and several people active on this list = have=20 been presenters at the past=20 events.

Regards,
Zubair

Member,&nbs= p;Technical=20 Program Committee - MPLS 2011=20 Conference

**********************=
**********************************************************
IMPORTANT.Les informations contenues dans ce message electronique y compris=
 les fichiers attaches sont strictement confidentielles
et peuvent etre protegees par la loi.
Ce message electronique est destine exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) men=
tionne(s) ci-dessus.
Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur ou s il ne vous est pas destine, ve=
uillez immediatement le signaler  a l expediteur et effacer ce message=20
et tous les fichiers eventuellement attaches.
Toute lecture, exploitation ou transmission des informations contenues dans=
 ce message est interdite.
Tout message electronique est susceptible d alteration.
A ce titre, le Groupe France Telecom decline toute responsabilite notamment=
 s il a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie.
De meme, il appartient au destinataire de s assurer de l absence de tout vi=
rus.

IMPORTANT.This e-mail message and any attachments are strictly confidential=
 and may be protected by law. This message is
intended only for the named recipient(s) above.
If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(=
s), please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message.
Any unauthorized view, usage or disclosure ofthis message is prohibited.
Since e-mail messages may not be reliable, France Telecom Group shall not b=
e liable for any message if modified, changed or falsified.
Additionally the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
***************************************************************************=
*****
------_=_NextPart_001_01CBEA45.E5254C96-- From yakov@juniper.net Mon Mar 28 11:46:58 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 D03BB3A6A4B for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:46:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 Lo08iMinN87H for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77453A67D6 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTZDX/ZnbExXA+1Q+cnKM4bW6sG8wMEDM@postini.com; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:48:35 PDT Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:44:46 -0700 Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id p2SIkEv43977; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:46:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-ID: <201103281846.p2SIkEv43977@magenta.juniper.net> To: Subject: draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-bgp-mvpn-extranet as L3VPN WG document MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <35139.1301337973.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:46:13 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Cc: Praveen.Muley@alcatel-lucent.com, thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com, rahul@juniper.net 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: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:46:58 -0000 Folks, Given that the new L3VPN WG charter now includes MVPN Extranet specification, the authors of draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-bgp-mvpn-extranet would like L3VPN WG to accept draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-bgp-mvpn-extranet as an L3VPN WG document. (on behalf of the authors) Yakov. From yakov@juniper.net Mon Mar 28 11:50:39 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 760ED3A691D for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:50:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 QRXy+yuhLy+m for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og117.obsmtp.com (exprod7og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D35D3A68E8 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob117.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTZDY2zFfa/WIfCnHVjqgOvFoVK1ehdk8@postini.com; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:52:16 PDT Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:48:45 -0700 Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id p2SIoCv45765; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:50:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-ID: <201103281850.p2SIoCv45765@magenta.juniper.net> To: Subject: draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-04.txt as L3VPN WG document MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <35440.1301338212.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:50:12 -0700 From: Yakov Rekhter Cc: Praveen.Muley@alcatel-lucent.com, rahul@juniper.net 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: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:50:39 -0000 Folks, Given that the new L3VPN WG charter now includes S-PMSI Wildcard selection specification, the authors of draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-04.txt would like to ask L3VPN WG to accept draft-rekhter-mvpn-wildcard-spmsi-04.txt as an L3VPN WG document. (On behalf of the authors) Yakov. From erosen@cisco.com Mon Mar 28 12:49:00 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 11DA83A68F5 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:49:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 xo2wQBD0OG64 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26ED23A68F2 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:48:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=erosen@cisco.com; l=603; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301341836; x=1302551436; h=subject:in-reply-to:reply-to:to:date:message-id:from; bh=P5P8LqbDdeFYKCPQKcEfvIU7CpMjm8PoywefvBB+iz4=; b=QKMrk8TLhKqdmErUTpv3UA64Eu7pgWzg+Dvdlf9ZVFyIn0XQGhTLoMmU ut11R1rykTLTAQnl0zl5+bGvIMFrds9b6mcKr/6TE8ANfxblJiuYWCbKC fcnl2bBgH34oSM63/rTmwbsgeQYAba7ErDcZotxUAFGaOCaxh/foTezOO g=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,257,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="326121674" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2011 19:49:31 +0000 Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2SJnU3k024872; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:49:31 GMT Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2SJnUDM014172; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:49:30 -0400 Subject: L3VPN WG document on wild cards In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:50:12 -0700. <201103281850.p2SIoCv45765@magenta.juniper.net> To: l3vpn@ietf.org Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:49:30 -0400 Message-ID: <14171.1301341770@erosen-linux> From: Eric Rosen X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:49:00 -0000 I believe there are two documents that have been around for awhile on wild card usage in S-PMSIs, the first of which is: draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-05.txt. and which I believe does not differ significantly from the other. So I would propose either that this draft be adopted, or, preferably, that the two sets of authors be asked to merge their documents into a single document for the WG. There was some discussion of these documents on the mailing list; please consult the list archives for July 23-31, 2009. I believe that was the last time these drafts were discussed. From erosen@cisco.com Mon Mar 28 13:05:38 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 3BD103A68FF for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:05:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 IUS1sIstTQ3r for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51BCC3A68FE for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=erosen@cisco.com; l=571; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301342835; x=1302552435; h=to:subject:in-reply-to:reply-to:date:message-id:from; bh=unPik30ou9YJRBakEXQZ7Aznj7cswDjphfmpF8lYi+g=; b=nIw/lT8L94CQzVoLxInYkLRvNS5YYZv6uy4x4fjqUkljXq3ryO6TmgpP L6Zd1FQ1jN5d4H2uZcEkGuZQoQbG6YWaHO6abQJ5IxokGHM2lCId3I362 wQGWw+LDKE2iSGfw1EEbb3I7e14cJkfqliHBSRhB7pSZZwl8+SF5hihxG g=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,257,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="419706206" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2011 20:00:25 +0000 Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2SK0O5m002395; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:00:25 GMT Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2SK0OBE014341; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:00:24 -0400 To: l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: L3VPN WG document on extranets In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:46:13 -0700. <201103281846.p2SIkEv43977@magenta.juniper.net> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:00:24 -0400 Message-ID: <14340.1301342424@erosen-linux> From: Eric Rosen X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:05:38 -0000 Again, there are two documents on this topic. In this case I think they are largely complementary, though there are some discrepancies in the extranet functionality that is provided. In this case, it might make sense for the WG to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn- mvpn-extranet-02 as well as draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-bgp-mvpn-extranet-05, but asking the authors to merge the docs would probably produce a better result with a lesser amount of posturing on the mailing list. Please see the discussion of these documents on the mailing list, July 17 and August 17, 2009. From erosen@cisco.com Mon Mar 28 13:29:52 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 A7AE23A6A6B for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:29:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 nPcYqHb+zThv for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E56A3A6A69 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:29:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=erosen@cisco.com; l=3559; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301344289; x=1302553889; h=to:subject:reply-to:mime-version:date:message-id:from; bh=CR3OPEXRbrPgtzn30pHFCR+f0SrNFIW4Tjz4P36ItUI=; b=dZ/fwVJIEgck1loxvqJlXE+1ShpSxnjhhNEE3m/jDPGKCgQ44rw42F+1 f/nHt0DNlq9Q/mkZV/OI1DzBsVB3rPmiVvZ1LJkR05wBi7MZqNuFRpIVV XP34llFMMmmCtGZkVL+gVbY2oDtgKIsuK20TubjUqZMM2evVdirAL/FdJ c=; X-Files: None : None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,257,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="419733780" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2011 20:31:29 +0000 Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2SKVSEe010844; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:31:29 GMT Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2SKVSiK014675; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:31:28 -0400 To: l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: MVPN with bidirectional P-tunnels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:31:28 -0400 Message-ID: <14674.1301344288@erosen-linux> From: Eric Rosen X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:29:52 -0000 --=-=-= Given the following from the new charter: The WG will continue to extend and enhance the Multicast over BGP/MPLS VPN solution Perhaps it is also a good time to ask the WG to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn- mvpn-bidir-03.txt. Attached is a message from July, 2010 explaining the need for this document. --=-=-= Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline; filename=1166 Received: from email.cisco.com by erosen-linux with IMAP (fetchmail-6.3.6) for (single-drop); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com ([72.163.62.139]) by xmb-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:25:16 -0500 Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:25:16 -0500 Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2010 13:25:09 +0000 Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6MDP9Pc011383; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:25:09 GMT Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6MDP8Im004121; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:25:08 -0400 To: l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-01.txt Reply-to: erosen@cisco.com X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 23.1.1 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:25:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4120.1279805108@erosen-linux> From: Eric Rosen Return-Path: erosen@cisco.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2010 13:25:16.0982 (UTC) FILETIME=[5309DD60:01CB29A1] I would like to call the WG's attention to draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir- 01.txt. This draft provides the specification for the use of bidirectional tunnels to instantiate I-PMSIs or S-PMSIs. The bidirectional tunnels can be created by using BIDIR-PIM (already standardized) or by using mLDP (already adopted by the MPLS WG). The use of bidirectional P-tunnels is discussed in draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis- mcast-10.txt in numerous places. In draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp-08, the means of using the PMSI Tunnel Attribute in BGP MCAST-VPN routes to identify bidirectional P-tunnels has already been standardized. Draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10.txt specifies a method of supporting customer BIDIR, known as "partitioned sets of PEs". This method is also recommended by draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06.txt. The use of MP2MP LSPs is one of two possible methods of implementing "partitioned sets of PEs", and is the only method of implementing this recommended method when upstream-assigned MPLS labels are not available. Given the above, the detailed specification of the use of bidirectional P-tunnels is an obvious "next step" for the WG to take on. Most of the material in this draft has been available for several years, and as of today I am not aware of any competing drafts. Note that in the -01 version of this draft, it is no longer always required for the root of an MP2MP LSP P-tunnel to be a PE router. This removes (I hope) one of the objections that was made in Anaheim during a brief discussion of this topic. I regret that I will not be in Maastricht to discuss this in person, but comments on the mailing list are welcome. --=-=-=-- From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Mon Mar 28 16:43:04 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 9417A3A6A8B for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:43:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=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 xZWJhWkvYn1z for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9AF3A6980 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-4489.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.68.137]) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4M6y-0004JE-3H for l3vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:44:40 +0100 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: WG adoption polls Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:44:35 +0100 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 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: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:43:04 -0000 Colleagues, I would like to cut off all the recent e-mails on L3VPN WG adoption = polls for various individual drafts and set some ground rules. L3VPN has a history of differing parties proposing their own solutions = that differ to a greater or lesser extent. This has lead to significant = discussion, some of which is fruitful and some of which has been less = so. Technical discussion of alternative solutions is one of the purposes of = IETF and one of the fundamental purposes of WGs within the IETF. At the = same time, IMO, while it is appropriate for authors to make public = statements about the readiness of their draft/solution for WG adoption = it is ultimately the job of the WG chairs to instigate any calls for = consensus in order to ensure that such consensus can be fairly and = properly judged. This evening there have been a series of e-mails from individual authors = requesting WG adoption of their individual drafts where there is overlap = in the scope of the presented drafts. Wherever possible our aim is = always to produce a single specification/solution for a particular = problems and while that is not always possible we should always aim to = achieve that goal and only accept multiple specifications/solutions when = it is obvious that clear consensus for a single specification/solution = is not possible. Therefore, rather than endorse the various individual calls for WG = adoption of different individual drafts I would like to ask that folks = do not express their opinion in favour or in dissent. Instead we will = proceed as follows: The chairs will work with the individual draft = authors to assess the similarities and differences between the various = drafts and determine what topics is it appropriate to attempt to judge = the WG's consensus on. Following that discussion I expect to send one or more e-mails to the = list requesting the WG's input on those drafts/issues in order to judge = the WG's consensus on how to proceed with addressing the milestones in = our newly approved charter. By taking such an approach I hope we can try to keep the work of the WG = focussed on the technical issues we have been chartered to solve. Thanks Ben = From nick.weeds@metaswitch.com Thu Mar 31 03:45:57 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 8916F28C0D6 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:45:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 m5+i8A8aWR6U for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from enfiets2.dataconnection.com (enfiets2.dataconnection.com [192.91.191.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062AE3A6B2D for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ENFIMBOX1.ad.datcon.co.uk (172.18.10.27) by enfiets2.dataconnection.com (172.18.4.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:47:56 +0100 Received: from ENFIMBOX1.ad.datcon.co.uk ([172.18.10.27]) by ENFIMBOX1.ad.datcon.co.uk ([172.18.10.27]) with mapi; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:47:33 +0100 From: Nick Weeds To: "draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:47:32 +0100 Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07 Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-07 Thread-Index: AcvjrgW8CKrDGuGTSpWIaLyp8f9P2AAzE/vwAjRLTTAAAO2YcAAG3Ka7AGDDy+AAKMj/wA== Message-ID: <44EE1E31095AE349AC6C3C0B69FFBF02A684BC09A4@ENFIMBOX1.ad.datcon.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_44EE1E31095AE349AC6C3C0B69FFBF02A684BC09A4ENFIMBOX1adda_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "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, 31 Mar 2011 10:45:57 -0000 --_000_44EE1E31095AE349AC6C3C0B69FFBF02A684BC09A4ENFIMBOX1adda_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, The changes in the new draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-07.txt draft look good, but = I do have a couple of specific comments. Section 4.3.2 / top of p10 The text says that a PE advertises the IPv6 route learned from MP-BGP to at= tached CEs via OSPFv3 if various conditions hold, including: "No OSPFv3 route to the same prefix exists in the VRF." I think this is too restrictive. The aim is to allow a choice between rout= ing over the VPN and routing over an OSPF backdoor link. The condition abo= ve would prevent routing over the VPN if there was already a route over an = OSPF backdoor link. I believe the correct condition would be that the OSPFv3 decision process s= elects the VPN route as the preferred route. Section 4.3.2.3 / p11 The rules 1 and 2 for comparing OSPFv3 Domain IDs state how to compare the = 6 value bytes but not how to compare the 2 type bytes. I believe the rules= should match RFC 4577 section 4.2.8.1 rules 1 and 3. In other words, eith= er (1) all 8 (not 6) bytes match, or (2) the 6 byte value fields of both at= tributes are all zeroes and the type bytes are ignored. Note that in the f= irst case the 2 type bytes must match and in the latter case they are ignor= ed. Nick. Nick Weeds Software Engineer, Network Technologies Division Metaswitch Networks nick.weeds@metaswitch.com +44 (0) 20 8366 1177 www.metaswitch.com --_000_44EE1E31095AE349AC6C3C0B69FFBF02A684BC09A4ENFIMBOX1adda_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

The changes in the new draft-ietf-l3vpn-os= pfv3-07.txt draft look good, but I do have a couple of specific comments.

 

= Section 4.3.2 / top of p10
<= br>The text says that a PE advertises the IPv6 route learned from MP-BGP to= attached CEs via OSPFv3 if various conditions hold, including:

&nbs= p;       "No OSPFv3 route to the same pr= efix exists in the VRF."

I think this is too restrictive. = The aim is to allow a choice between routing over the VPN and routing over= an OSPF backdoor link.  The condition above would prevent routing ove= r the VPN if there was already a route over an OSPF backdoor link.

I believe the correct condition would be that = the OSPFv3 decision process selects the VPN route as the preferred route.
Section 4.3.2.3 / p11

The rules 1 and 2 for comparing O= SPFv3 Domain IDs state how to compare the 6 value bytes but not how to comp= are the 2 type bytes.  I believe the rules should match RFC 4577 secti= on 4.2.8.1 rules 1 and 3.  In other words, either (1) all 8 (not 6) by= tes match, or (2) the 6 byte value fields of both attributes are all zeroes= and the type bytes are ignored.  Note that in the first case the 2 ty= pe bytes must match and in the latter case they are ignored.

 

      &nbs= p; Nick.

Nick Weeds<= br>Software Engineer, Network Technologies Division
M= etaswitch Networks

nick.weeds@m= etaswitch.com
+44 (0) 20 8366 1177
www.metaswitch.com

= --_000_44EE1E31095AE349AC6C3C0B69FFBF02A684BC09A4ENFIMBOX1adda_--