From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Sun Mar 4 07:53:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11A621F862F for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 07:53:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.882 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.882 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.297, BAYES_40=-0.185, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mxCaGJslgjq2 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 07:53:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2371521F856D for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 07:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpc10-cmbg15-2-0-cust121.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.30.246.122] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S4DkB-000280-Kx for l3vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 15:53:07 +0000 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:53:06 +0000 Message-Id: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: L3VPN list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 15:53:10 -0000 Colleagues, The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that = the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the = basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & = Spoke VPNs. This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt = draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message = (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs = privately. If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if = you could also state the reason for your objection. Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. Thanks Ben= From DanielC@orckit.com Sun Mar 4 08:46:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EACA21F8549 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 08:46:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q+yl3vYLCkJy for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 08:46:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from tlvmail1.orckit.com (tlvmail1.orckit.com [109.226.33.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7574A21F8531 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 08:46:58 -0800 (PST) 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 Subject: RE: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 18:46:57 +0200 Message-ID: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA0813076703C9@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Thread-Index: Acz6HzN3nuXIV5dnQUWtE/dTGdfzegABzOaw References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: "Daniel Cohn" To: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" , "L3VPN list" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:46:59 -0000 Support -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 5:53 PM To: L3VPN list Subject: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Colleagues, The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & Spoke VPNs. This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if you could also state the reason for your objection. Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. Thanks Ben From luayjalil@gmail.com Sun Mar 4 09:04:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C7E21F856F for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:04:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hjFhcLuLoZSF for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:04:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFF621F854A for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:04:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by ggmi1 with SMTP id i1so1545816ggm.31 for ; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:04:54 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of luayjalil@gmail.com designates 10.236.156.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.236.156.34; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of luayjalil@gmail.com designates 10.236.156.34 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=luayjalil@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=luayjalil@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.236.156.34]) by 10.236.156.34 with SMTP id l22mr22736973yhk.118.1330880694166 (num_hops = 1); Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:04:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=reply-to:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; bh=6Azjh/dQ+CT8PjEbN4PedoapEKULRpmBT1zhk7hQNyQ=; b=zIpZH1RunrvwwSg/8pHD2pgxUBTPkbQpAUGefC2dw1jZK8hGa4swd9Pmq8X0nWGFtZ VeGtz6nuvcvXHiQ3HgxrJy9Cu/oXpZvrUiIfh3P24Unk1ZK23P8Qr2xKmjUJXjL5yaj3 TRaI9Y0q9CfdLSiQmO+4lJDpUsBWDJqVOVbak88xvlRs6x8vyhhMgD0xMJ9vGOKXR+o/ a655ZOYh3QxT00BnjIGhrcPKcU4SYWRAOm/1PX5I8AMinB6M7o1m62AziREBYz2jFwNe JCA9VqLtPZpnCRZQEDBwKFGnuOPB59z3a7NTGdq/koN2WVwHnODQoQP3DLEd2Wybkw6n 4URw== Received: by 10.236.156.34 with SMTP id l22mr18034266yhk.118.1330880694103; Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:04:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from Xlr8r (76-204-214-34.lightspeed.allntx.sbcglobal.net. [76.204.214.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z27sm32725212yhh.8.2012.03.04.09.04.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:04:53 -0800 (PST) From: "Luay" To: "'Ben Niven-Jenkins'" , "'L3VPN list'" References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Subject: RE: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 11:04:45 -0600 Message-ID: <000301ccfa28$e73137a0$b593a6e0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acz6HutEvbQaWc2iSn+FmqvjI4KK4QACa/mQ Content-Language: en-us X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: luayjalil@gmail.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:04:55 -0000 Support (co-author) Luay -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 9:53 AM To: L3VPN list Subject: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Colleagues, The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & Spoke VPNs. This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if you could also state the reason for your objection. Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. Thanks Ben= From RafiR@orckit.com Sun Mar 4 22:22:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E613A21F8630 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 22:22:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.474, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fEdMrL0W9iAS for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 22:22:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from tlvmail1.orckit.com (tlvmail1.orckit.com [109.226.33.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2E5521F85D1 for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2012 22:22:26 -0800 (PST) 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 Subject: RE: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:24:26 +0200 Message-ID: <45A67426326F814AAC27DBEC3FC7EEC204353F8A@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Thread-Index: Acz6HzOB1UPTHhLFS16ORsJeUvSagAAeWV5A References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: "Rafi Ram" To: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" , "L3VPN list" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:22:28 -0000 Support. -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 5:53 PM To: L3VPN list Subject: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Colleagues, The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & Spoke VPNs. This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if you could also state the reason for your objection. Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. Thanks Ben From bruno.decraene@orange.com Mon Mar 5 00:17:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C5121F8522 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 00:17:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.004 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.495, BAYES_05=-1.11, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bQk4oJ0WFJ9w for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 00:17:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D356921F851E for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 00:17:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 15F433243FE; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:17:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E543535C061; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:17:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a441:e6a9:6143:6f0f]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.000; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:17:37 +0100 From: To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Subject: RE: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Topic: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Index: AQHM+h7q0vtACAyjXk6xSMkFF+MvKJZbXFrQ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:17:36 +0000 Message-ID: <11257_1330935457_4F5476A1_11257_1123_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A027593@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.5] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.1.19.234517 Cc: L3VPN list X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:17:39 -0000 Support. >-----Original Message----- >From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Ben >Niven-Jenkins >Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 4:53 PM >To: L3VPN list >Subject: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG >document > >Colleagues, > >The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that the >document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the basis= for >a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & Spoke VPNs. > >This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-rekht= er- >l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. > >Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (w= ith >yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. > >If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if y= ou >could also state the reason for your objection. > >Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. > >Thanks >Ben ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorization. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange shall not be liable if th= is message was modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Mon Mar 5 03:54:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA66A21F85FC for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 03:54:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.39 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.456, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P1RFbf9phaUh for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 03:54:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from omr3.networksolutionsemail.com (omr3.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D7121F85BB for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 03:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-omr11 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr3.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q25Bscjt024651 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 06:54:38 -0500 Authentication-Results: cm-omr11 smtp.user=william.zayas@fibercrossing.net; auth=pass (LOGIN) X-Authenticated-UID: william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Received: from [66.87.123.154] ([66.87.123.154:53139] helo=[21.238.157.154]) by cm-omr11 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id 21/6E-32269-D79A45F4; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:54:38 -0500 To: ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk, "=?utf-8?B?TDNWUE4gbGlzdA==?=" Message-ID: <21.6E.32269.D79A45F4@cm-omr11> From: "=?utf-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBaYXlhcw==?=" Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFBvbGwgdG8gYWRvcHQgZHJhZnQtcmVraHRlci1sM3Zwbi12aXJ0dWFsLWh1?= =?utf-8?B?Yi0wMiBhcyBhIEwzVlBOIFdHCWRvY3VtZW50?= Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:54:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7_1330948495266" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 11:54:41 -0000 ------=_Part_7_1330948495266 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline U3VwcG9ydC4KCgoKLS0tLS0gUmVwbHkgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLQpGcm9tOiAiQmVuIE5pdmVuLUpl bmtpbnMiIDxiZW5Abml2ZW4tamVua2lucy5jby51az4KVG86ICJMM1ZQTiBsaXN0IiA8bDN2cG5A aWV0Zi5vcmc+ClN1YmplY3Q6IFBvbGwgdG8gYWRvcHQgZHJhZnQtcmVraHRlci1sM3Zwbi12aXJ0 dWFsLWh1Yi0wMiBhcyBhIEwzVlBOIFdHCWRvY3VtZW50CkRhdGU6IFN1biwgTWFyIDQsIDIwMTIg MTA6NTMgYW0KCgpDb2xsZWFndWVzLAoKVGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgb2YgZHJhZnQtcmVraHRlci1sM3Zw bi12aXJ0dWFsLWh1Yi0wMiBoYXZlIHJlcXVlc3RlZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBiZSBjb25z aWRlcmVkIGZvciBhZG9wdGlvbiBhcyBhIFdHIGRvY3VtZW50IGJ5IEwzVlBOIGFzIHRoZSBiYXNp cyBmb3IgYSBzb2x1dGlvbiB0aGF0IGVuYWJsZXMgZnVsbCBtZXNoIGNvbm5lY3Rpdml0eSB3aXRo IEh1YiAmIFNwb2tlIFZQTnMuCgpUaGlzIGUtbWFpbCBzdGFydHMgYSBwb2xsIG9uIHdoZXRoZXIg dGhlIEwzVlBOIFdHIHNob3VsZCBhZG9wdCBkcmFmdC1yZWtodGVyLWwzdnBuLXZpcnR1YWwtaHVi LTAyIGFzIGEgTDNWUE4gV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQuCgpQbGVhc2UgaW5kaWNhdGUgeW91ciBzdXBwb3J0 IG9yIG90aGVyd2lzZSBieSByZXNwb25kaW5nIHRvIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSAod2l0aCB5ZXMvc3Vw cG9ydCBvciBuby9kbyBub3Qgc3VwcG9ydCkgb3IgZS1tYWlsaW5nIHRoZSBXRyBjaGFpcnMgcHJp dmF0ZWx5LgoKSWYgeW91IGRvIG5vdCBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1l bnQgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgdXNlZnVsIGlmIHlvdSBjb3VsZCBhbHNvIHN0YXRlIHRoZSByZWFzb24g Zm9yIHlvdXIgb2JqZWN0aW9uLgoKUGxlYXNlIHNlbmQgeW91ciByZXNwb25zZXMgYnkgbWlkbmln aHQgMTl0aCBNYXJjaCBQU1QuCgpUaGFua3MKQmVuCg== ------=_Part_7_1330948495266 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline U3VwcG9ydC48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+LS0tLS0gUmVwbHkgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLTxicj5Gcm9t OiAmcXVvdDtCZW4gTml2ZW4tSmVua2lucyZxdW90OyAmbHQ7YmVuQG5pdmVuLWplbmtpbnMuY28u dWsmZ3Q7PGJyPlRvOiAmcXVvdDtMM1ZQTiBsaXN0JnF1b3Q7ICZsdDtsM3ZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZyZn dDs8YnI+U3ViamVjdDogUG9sbCB0byBhZG9wdCBkcmFmdC1yZWtodGVyLWwzdnBuLXZpcnR1YWwt aHViLTAyIGFzIGEgTDNWUE4gV0cJZG9jdW1lbnQ8YnI+RGF0ZTogU3VuLCBNYXIgNCwgMjAxMiAx MDo1MyBhbTxicj48YnI+PGJyPkNvbGxlYWd1ZXMsPGJyPjxicj5UaGUgYXV0aG9ycyBvZiBkcmFm dC1yZWtodGVyLWwzdnBuLXZpcnR1YWwtaHViLTAyIGhhdmUgcmVxdWVzdGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIGRv Y3VtZW50IGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgZm9yIGFkb3B0aW9uIGFzIGEgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgYnkgTDNW UE4gYXMgdGhlIGJhc2lzIGZvciBhIHNvbHV0aW9uIHRoYXQgZW5hYmxlcyBmdWxsIG1lc2ggY29u bmVjdGl2aXR5IHdpdGggSHViICZhbXA7IFNwb2tlIFZQTnMuPGJyPjxicj5UaGlzIGUtbWFpbCBz dGFydHMgYSBwb2xsIG9uIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhlIEwzVlBOIFdHIHNob3VsZCBhZG9wdCBkcmFmdC1y ZWtodGVyLWwzdnBuLXZpcnR1YWwtaHViLTAyIGFzIGEgTDNWUE4gV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQuPGJyPjxi cj5QbGVhc2UgaW5kaWNhdGUgeW91ciBzdXBwb3J0IG9yIG90aGVyd2lzZSBieSByZXNwb25kaW5n IHRvIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSAod2l0aCB5ZXMvc3VwcG9ydCBvciBuby9kbyBub3Qgc3VwcG9ydCkg b3IgZS1tYWlsaW5nIHRoZSBXRyBjaGFpcnMgcHJpdmF0ZWx5Ljxicj48YnI+SWYgeW91IGRvIG5v dCBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgdXNlZnVs IGlmIHlvdSBjb3VsZCBhbHNvIHN0YXRlIHRoZSByZWFzb24gZm9yIHlvdXIgb2JqZWN0aW9uLjxi cj48YnI+UGxlYXNlIHNlbmQgeW91ciByZXNwb25zZXMgYnkgbWlkbmlnaHQgMTl0aCBNYXJjaCBQ U1QuPGJyPjxicj5UaGFua3M8YnI+QmVuPGJyPg== ------=_Part_7_1330948495266-- From zubair.ahmad@orange.com Mon Mar 5 15:31:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C7221F85F0 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:31:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 764wjptlHI2i for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:31:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB4821F85B1 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0E4D918C150; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 00:31:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from PWEXCB10.usa.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.112.0.69]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B9C7B27C059; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 00:31:52 +0100 (CET) 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 Subject: RE: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 18:31:38 -0500 Message-ID: <10987_1330990313_4F554CE8_10987_746_10_7C5C5ED440632B4DAE601971324975F504D26734@PWEXCB10.usa.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Thread-Index: Acz6Huq/PeMtNxytQNyizkbhT2oW0wBCSITg References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: To: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" , "L3VPN list" X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.1.19.234517 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:31:55 -0000 =20 Support. =20 -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 10:53 AM To: L3VPN list Subject: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Colleagues, The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & Spoke VPNs. This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if you could also state the reason for your objection. Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. Thanks Ben ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorization. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange shall not be liable if th= is message was modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From robert@raszuk.net Mon Mar 5 15:39:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E15721F85ED for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:39:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oxqGq6wJQXIn for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:39:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7C221F85C0 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:39:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 12905 invoked by uid 399); 5 Mar 2012 23:39:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?216.69.69.231?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@216.69.69.231) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 5 Mar 2012 23:39:04 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 216.69.69.231 Message-ID: <4F554E97.6000804@raszuk.net> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:39:03 +0100 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: L3VPN list X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:39:05 -0000 Support. Thx, R. > Colleagues, > > The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that > the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as > the basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with > Hub& Spoke VPNs. > > This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt > draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. > > Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this > message (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG > chairs privately. > > If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful > if you could also state the reason for your objection. > > Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. > > Thanks Ben > From agmalis@gmail.com Mon Mar 5 15:42:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDDC21E804E for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:42:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AXIisgaevzIL for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:42:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8460D21E8046 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:42:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by iazz13 with SMTP id z13so7255894iaz.31 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:42:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=yaK8E7DoBNT+WzDOKg3F+C6auGKHxbt8CErBCsEoCkk=; b=OsuDZqpS0Jfahdo2tNQTa9qzqQfIJikBPy7yvBxfxvWBiGrk+Rbn2MH/P9ZwOvg6k/ eJnFaSTsC92J4BJgTtCH4IYJoTiqGyx6N5xXib+3CE6iF9QYAQZOWR+7vLF+p7A0uW7p p6tLqcqO9fQ6iNI9ihvIzWMtP0cqDw/Zf8xFZsIR61tY9dNcu/0H+z0SFWuqM3uOpg5s Y6hAsNnSe/LGUngZc1mJP9AkWEg0vmB5bCdskFIlp5QiGY+TiDrukN5MNagWyeyAMZLj Nnw3yswHPlksildnGYWtZdMkgysrm1GpK+3Ph81UBRjFMASS656Yhd3v//nSOrCRDJse 25mA== Received: by 10.50.85.202 with SMTP id j10mr7038251igz.58.1330990947150; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:42:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.222.136 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:42:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:42:07 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: L3VPN list X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:42:29 -0000 Support. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Colleagues, > > The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & Spoke VPNs. > > This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. > > Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. > > If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if you could also state the reason for your objection. > > Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. > > Thanks > Ben From dave.mcdysan@verizon.com Tue Mar 6 07:06:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D4621F876A for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 07:06:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XuLiI9m4P4cQ for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 07:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from fldsmtpe01.verizon.com (fldsmtpe01.verizon.com [140.108.26.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA9721F8757 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 07:06:01 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2012 15:05:33 +0000 From: "Mcdysan, David E" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,540,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="234374665" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb02.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.189]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2012 15:05:30 +0000 Received: from fhdp1lumxc7v11.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.1.215]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.189]) with mapi; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:03:43 -0500 To: L3vpn Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:05:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Topic: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Index: Acz7qlJi2eRFlk6BScqHmiJQteu6ow== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.1.0.101012 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:06:02 -0000 Support On 3/4/12 10:53 AM, "Ben Niven-Jenkins" wrote: >Colleagues, > >The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that the >document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the >basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & Spoke >VPNs. > >This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt >draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. > >Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message >(with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs >privately. > >If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if >you could also state the reason for your objection. > >Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. > >Thanks >Ben From stephane.litkowski@orange.com Tue Mar 6 07:40:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F1721F85DD for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 07:40:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sMkVYXeweKsw for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 07:40:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAACA21F8513 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 07:40:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5BACF2DC1AB; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:40:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCC21.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.168.72.145]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A965D238080; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:40:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.168.74.47]) by PUEXCC21.nanterre.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:40:44 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:40:33 +0100 Message-ID: <7551_1331048445_4F562FFD_7551_14588_1_4FC3556A36EE3646A09DAA60429F533507E942A8@PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: thread-topic: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocument Thread-Index: Acz6HurMPEKCTYFmR/+0S1PhKVD7rgBkIIPQ References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: To: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" , "L3VPN list" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2012 15:40:44.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E683970:01CCFBAF] X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.3.6.121218 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:40:47 -0000 yes/support =20 -----Message d'origine----- De : l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de B= en Niven-Jenkins Envoy=E9 : dimanche 4 mars 2012 16:53 =C0 : L3VPN list Objet : Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WGdocum= ent Colleagues, The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that the d= ocument be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the basis f= or a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & Spoke VPNs. This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-rekhte= r-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (wi= th yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if yo= u could also state the reason for your objection. Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. Thanks Ben ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorization. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange shall not be liable if th= is message was modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From awduche@awduche.com Tue Mar 6 10:53:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B645721E80A4 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.603 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J9kABDJJtrfr for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from omr6.networksolutionsemail.com (omr6.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061C821E809D for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:53:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from cm-omr7 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr6.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q26IrHnL028997 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:53:17 -0500 Authentication-Results: cm-omr7 smtp.user=awduche@awduche.com; auth=pass (LOGIN) X-Authenticated-UID: awduche@awduche.com Received: from [166.58.70.247] ([166.58.70.247:61799] helo=[166.58.70.247]) by cm-omr7 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPSA (cipher=AES128-SHA) id 0B/88-29124-C1D565F4; Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:53:17 -0500 References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A405) From: "Daniel O. Awduche" Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:53:13 -0500 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Cc: L3VPN list X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:53:19 -0000 Support.=20 Regards, Daniel O. Awduche=20 On Mar 4, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wro= te: > Colleagues, >=20 > The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that the d= ocument be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the basis fo= r a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & Spoke VPNs. >=20 > This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-rekht= er-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. >=20 > Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (w= ith yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. >=20 > If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if y= ou could also state the reason for your objection. >=20 > Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. >=20 > Thanks > Ben From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Tue Mar 6 11:40:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE6721F870B for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:40:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.271 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.728, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ukJX3HwZynbe for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from fldsmtpe02.verizon.com (fldsmtpe02.verizon.com [140.108.26.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C254621E80BE for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:39:10 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2012 19:39:09 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,541,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="234585507" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb03.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.86]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2012 19:39:09 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.3.158]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.86]) with mapi; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:37:33 -0500 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 14:37:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Topic: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Index: Acz70JMzjk8CQFYHRJ6s3Q/BLbRmVw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4F554E97.6000804@raszuk.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: L3VPN list X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:40:07 -0000 +1. Thanks, Nabil On 3/5/12 3:39 PM, "Robert Raszuk" wrote: >Support. > >Thx, >R. > >> Colleagues, >> >> The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that >> the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as >> the basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with >> Hub& Spoke VPNs. >> >> This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt >> draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. >> >> Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this >> message (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG >> chairs privately. >> >> If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful >> if you could also state the reason for your objection. >> >> Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. >> >> Thanks Ben >> > From wesley.george@twcable.com Tue Mar 6 13:27:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84AAD21F87F3; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:27:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.735 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yID3tSJ-CRJ; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:27:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A11C21F87F1; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 13:27:20 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.11 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,541,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="349693233" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB02.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.11]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 06 Mar 2012 16:27:02 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.26]) by PRVPEXHUB02.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.11]) with mapi; Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:27:18 -0500 From: "George, Wes" To: "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:27:17 -0500 Subject: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Topic: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Index: Acz73jZNIwy3VR2RQveW+x31Ps+7zA== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rtgarea-ads@ietf.org" , "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:27:24 -0000 Hello all - Rob and I have completed a revision of our draft discussing L3VPN scaling c= onsiderations. We've made some changes to the document structure to make it= flow better, and we think that we've added enough of the body that it is r= eady for discussion during a WG meeting. However, since L3VPN is not meetin= g during IETF in Paris, we're wondering if we should perhaps ask for time i= n the Routing area open meeting/RTGAREA WG instead? Either way, comments are still very welcome, especially if you can help us = bolster the currently weak section on multicast VPN scale. Abstract This document discusses scaling considerations unique to implementation of Layer 3 (IP) Virtual Private Networks, discusses a few best practices, and identifies gaps in the current tools and techniques which are making it more difficult for operators to cost- effectively scale and manage their L3VPN deployments. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gs-vpn-scaling-01 Thanks, Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From thomas.morin@orange.com Thu Mar 8 04:56:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A382521F8609 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:56:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNdBMn6IvQEo for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:56:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16EF21F8607 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 04:56:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D08AA440D1 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:58:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE0AA440C9 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:58:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:56:40 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from 10.193.21.179 ([10.193.21.179]) by ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.53]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:56:39 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Organization: France Telecom Orange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:57:11 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Index: Acz9Kuc3EJQmi6HMTJO9eUHXzxuY6A== References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2012 12:56:40.0044 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7732AC0:01CCFD2A] X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:56:42 -0000 U3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KLVRob21hcw0KDQpCZW4gTml2ZW4tSmVua2lucyBhIMOpY3JpdCA6DQo+IENv bGxlYWd1ZXMsDQo+DQo+IFRoZSBhdXRob3JzIG9mIGRyYWZ0LXJla2h0ZXItbDN2cG4tdmlydHVh bC1odWItMDIgaGF2ZSByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBm b3IgYWRvcHRpb24gYXMgYSBXRyBkb2N1bWVudCBieSBMM1ZQTiBhcyB0aGUgYmFzaXMgZm9yIGEg c29sdXRpb24gdGhhdCBlbmFibGVzIGZ1bGwgbWVzaCBjb25uZWN0aXZpdHkgd2l0aCBIdWImICBT cG9rZSBWUE5zLg0KPg0KPiBUaGlzIGUtbWFpbCBzdGFydHMgYSBwb2xsIG9uIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhl IEwzVlBOIFdHIHNob3VsZCBhZG9wdCBkcmFmdC1yZWtodGVyLWwzdnBuLXZpcnR1YWwtaHViLTAy IGFzIGEgTDNWUE4gV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQuDQo+DQo+IFBsZWFzZSBpbmRpY2F0ZSB5b3VyIHN1cHBv cnQgb3Igb3RoZXJ3aXNlIGJ5IHJlc3BvbmRpbmcgdG8gdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlICh3aXRoIHllcy9z dXBwb3J0IG9yIG5vL2RvIG5vdCBzdXBwb3J0KSBvciBlLW1haWxpbmcgdGhlIFdHIGNoYWlycyBw cml2YXRlbHkuDQo+DQo+IElmIHlvdSBkbyBub3Qgc3VwcG9ydCB0aGUgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgdGhl IGRvY3VtZW50IGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHVzZWZ1bCBpZiB5b3UgY291bGQgYWxzbyBzdGF0ZSB0aGUg cmVhc29uIGZvciB5b3VyIG9iamVjdGlvbi4NCj4NCj4gUGxlYXNlIHNlbmQgeW91ciByZXNwb25z ZXMgYnkgbWlkbmlnaHQgMTl0aCBNYXJjaCBQU1QuDQo+DQo+IFRoYW5rcw0KPiBCZW4NCg== From stephane.litkowski@orange.com Thu Mar 8 05:16:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4087421F85C9 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 05:16:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BLg06ORrrbrD for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 05:16:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E354F21F85C6 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 05:16:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 2D39F3B4A6E; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:16:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from puexcc31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.168.74.8]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id EF5E627C10D; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:16:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.168.74.46]) by puexcc31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:16:24 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:16:12 +0100 Message-ID: <9198_1331212584_4F58B128_9198_2057_5_4FC3556A36EE3646A09DAA60429F533507E94CD5@PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Index: Acz73jZNIwy3VR2RQveW+x31Ps+7zABSNHNg References: From: To: "George, Wes" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2012 13:16:24.0293 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9513950:01CCFD2D] X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.3.8.130022 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:16:26 -0000 Hi George, Here is my feedback from your document : 1) PE-CE BCP : I pretty agree with the content of the section. But I would like to add some stuffs, maybe can we do some recommandation or= at least a constation between usage of static/IGP/BGP. I see this in this way : - Some years ago, static routing couldn't provide dynamicity of failure det= ection for multiconnected site where PE-CE link layer not able to detect fa= ilure (ethernet non direct link ...), but today usage of BFD with static ro= uting ensure detection in all cases, so static routing can be used for mult= iconnected sites. - IGP : running IGP between PE-CE, IMHO, has a sense only to extend custome= r IGP between sites and make SP network transparent.=20 - BGP : BGP is a well designed protocol that can be used for two purposes : - providing dynamic advertisement of lot of routes (it seems impossible to= provision hundreds of static routes for an access !) - providing failure detection I took IGP case a bit out of my analysis ... For a monoconnected site, we could see that static routing is fine where nu= mber of routes is low (threshold to define : 10/15 ?) and where routes are = not changing everyday (otherwise provision activity on PE would be importan= t for this access), otherwise BGP would be prefered. In this case, there is= no need of fast failure detection, as it's a monoconnected site. So, setti= ng minimum holdtime to a high value (180) to protect PE may be fine (no nee= d of BFD).=20 For a multiconnected site, whatever the protocol used, as you mentionned, i= t's better to rely on BFD or other connectivity detection mechanism for fas= t detection rather than tuning protocol timers.The main issue is that CPE a= re sometimes low cost and not supporting BFD :( Then choosing protocol is just a matter of number/dynamicity of routes on t= he access (same as for monoconnected sites) -> choose static when number of= route low, BGP otherwise. In case of BGP, if BFD is used, setting minimum = holdtime to a high value (180) to protect PE may be fine (BFD ensuring dete= ction). If BFD not available on CPE, for this specific session, setting a = minimum holdtime to a protecting/tested value (15) to protect PE and as you= mention number of session with fast timers must be tracked. Compared to what you mention, the main point to be added in BCP is the diff= erence that should be made between monoconnected sites (no BFD , no fast de= tection needed) and multiconnected sites (fast detection needed). Sometimes= , some SP are using same rule for all BGP access, but it's not pretty good = for scaling ... One other issue to deal with could be persistent flapping of PE-CE BGP sess= ion (link issue ... Negotiation issue ...) =3D> BGP DampPeerOscillation nee= ded there but not well implemented 2) Network Event As for PE-CE issues, we can fall into process priorization issue there. Whe= n a PE loose a direct link, or when there is a link failure near a set of P= Es. PEs have to update their FIB and possibly hundreds thousands of VPN rou= tes because the change cause an interface change or a MPLS transport label = change. We already saw that some routers with bad (old) FIB implementations= and bad process priorization are going at 100% CPU updating ISIS routes in= RT and FIB and then VPN routes in RT and FIBs. During the 100% CPU, router= is loosing PE-CE BGP sessions or ISIS adjacency because of bad process pri= orization. Now with H-FIB implementation in codes, the issue is more hidden as it requ= ires less processing :) 3) Route Scale In the number of routes a PE must support, you can add ISIS routes, LDP FEC= s, and possibly TE tunnels that are impacting the global scaling too. Here I propose to separate this section between PE scaling, ASBR scaling, R= R scaling and address each part separately. You are mainly talking about PE= s here but ASBR and RRs are bottlenecks too. "Most PE routers use the absence of a given VRF instance (or RD/RT filtering) to limit the number of routes that they must actually carry, but this is sometimes of limited utility for a couple of reasons. First, it leads to an inconsistent routing table footprint from one PE router to the next, and it can change with every new customer turned up on the router. This leads to non-deterministic performance and scale." =3D> I don't agree on all stuffs there. Limiting routes imported by PE is c= learly helping controlplane. If you are importing all routes, then scaling = impact is clearly implementation dependant : at least, router will have mor= e memory consumption (so it should support millions of BGP routes !), and p= ossibly CPU usage too (more nexthop reachability computation depending on h= ow it's done...). As you mentionned, if PE doesn't import all routes, it requires to send rou= te-refresh to RR each time a new VRF is provisionned. With million routes o= n RR, it's impacting, as it could take some minutes (5-10-20 min) to receiv= e the routes , and only few routes will be accepted , all others will be de= nied. Formatting RIB-OUT upon route-refresh is something costly for the RR = (could impact transient update propagation time). In our case, we are aggre= gating route-refresh request at RR level every x seconds to permit the RR t= o format one time and serve multiple PEs with the same update formatting ac= tion. RTC is clearly helping there by just formatting/sending the requested route= s and I think there is no issue with using RTC (this is another debate !) "First, it leads to an inconsistent routing table footprint from one PE router to the next, and it can change with every new customer turned up on the router"=20 =3D> Yes, but is this an issue ? I agree that it could be better that all P= Es having same set of routes, but even with current hardware , this doesn't= scale ... "This leads to non-deterministic performance and scale." =3D> VPN footprint of cust= omers could be really different, I agree that some customers are spanning a= mong most of PEs, but it's not the case of all. Based on our experience, PE= s have different profiles in terms of VRFs. "In addition, customers may request the use of BGP multipath for faster failover or better load balancing, which has the net effect of installing more active routes into the table, rather than simply selecting the single best path." =3D> I think MP has a greater impact on FIB rather than in pure controlplan= e even if there is generally FIB structures in controlpane ... Regarding RD policy, I agree with your points, but now the choice can chang= e as there is some solution like add path, ORR, best external that could pe= rmit fast restoration with same RD policy (as in non VPN environment) =3D> = but I agree that you still do not increase number of nets, but you will inc= rease number of paths ... Regards, Stephane =20 -----Message d'origine----- De : l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de G= eorge, Wes Envoy=E9 : mardi 6 mars 2012 22:27 =C0 : l3vpn@ietf.org Cc : rtgarea-ads@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org Objet : updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Hello all - Rob and I have completed a revision of our draft discussing L3VPN scaling c= onsiderations. We've made some changes to the document structure to make it= flow better, and we think that we've added enough of the body that it is r= eady for discussion during a WG meeting. However, since L3VPN is not meetin= g during IETF in Paris, we're wondering if we should perhaps ask for time i= n the Routing area open meeting/RTGAREA WG instead? Either way, comments are still very welcome, especially if you can help us = bolster the currently weak section on multicast VPN scale. Abstract This document discusses scaling considerations unique to implementation of Layer 3 (IP) Virtual Private Networks, discusses a few best practices, and identifies gaps in the current tools and techniques which are making it more difficult for operators to cost- effectively scale and manage their L3VPN deployments. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gs-vpn-scaling-01 Thanks, Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for message= s that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From rajiva@cisco.com Thu Mar 8 08:50:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590CF21F8592 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:50:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nQ0-pV2dNvll for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:50:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12EBF21F8576 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 08:50:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=11884; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331225447; x=1332435047; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=20xoJkNeKnfNOXmE1aknMryEv2bioQIfguI6XBpWyIU=; b=IJxA2Jn4eHvlO3cZ/9hxX147BBMZdVMnce32M/wcFo0iY0rdwVKURaaa PTsm6ck/LEmvSiU38Ep/TIp8XMBYMELFb8ZXG9rimm5hloXrc5ccGjlA9 CPp7YWSRO18q3o+bjHtk9YMqEQk+ZFR3aep/QByF0TI2dJi2V0BSJv5vw A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAG7iWE+tJXG+/2dsb2JhbABCtSqBB4IKAQEBBBIBFAlCEwQCAQgRBAEBCwYXAQYBRQkIAQEEARIIEweHaAugEwGXMoojAQSFY2MEiB8znQuDAoE1AQc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,552,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="64867111" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2012 16:50:46 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q28Gokto002522; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:50:46 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:50:46 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:50:44 -0600 Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0795D3CE@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <9198_1331212584_4F58B128_9198_2057_5_4FC3556A36EE3646A09DAA60429F533507E94CD5@PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Index: Acz73jZNIwy3VR2RQveW+x31Ps+7zABSNHNgAAj284A= References: <9198_1331212584_4F58B128_9198_2057_5_4FC3556A36EE3646A09DAA60429F533507E94CD5@PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: , "George, Wes" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2012 16:50:46.0337 (UTC) FILETIME=[9BB16310:01CCFD4B] X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:50:48 -0000 > "First, it leads to an inconsistent > routing table footprint from one PE router to the next, and it can > change with every new customer turned up on the router" > =3D> Yes, but is this an issue ? I agree that it could be better that = all PEs having > same set of routes, but even with current hardware , this doesn't = scale ... +1. Frankly, why load the router with routes that it doesn't need = (because it has no customers). Inconsistency in VPN routing table per PE is desired for sanity, IMO. > "In addition, customers may request the use > of BGP multipath for faster failover or better load balancing, = which > has the net effect of installing more active routes into the table, > rather than simply selecting the single best path." True, but that's independent of L3VPN. =20 Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of stephane.litkowski@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 8:16 AM > To: George, Wes; l3vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request >=20 >=20 > Hi George, >=20 >=20 > Here is my feedback from your document : >=20 > 1) PE-CE BCP : >=20 > I pretty agree with the content of the section. > But I would like to add some stuffs, maybe can we do some = recommandation > or at least a constation between usage of static/IGP/BGP. > I see this in this way : > - Some years ago, static routing couldn't provide dynamicity of = failure > detection for multiconnected site where PE-CE link layer not able to = detect > failure (ethernet non direct link ...), but today usage of BFD with = static > routing ensure detection in all cases, so static routing can be used = for > multiconnected sites. >=20 > - IGP : running IGP between PE-CE, IMHO, has a sense only to extend > customer IGP between sites and make SP network transparent. >=20 > - BGP : BGP is a well designed protocol that can be used for two = purposes : > - providing dynamic advertisement of lot of routes (it seems > impossible to provision hundreds of static routes for an access !) > - providing failure detection >=20 > I took IGP case a bit out of my analysis ... > For a monoconnected site, we could see that static routing is fine = where > number of routes is low (threshold to define : 10/15 ?) and where = routes are > not changing everyday (otherwise provision activity on PE would be > important for this access), otherwise BGP would be prefered. In this = case, > there is no need of fast failure detection, as it's a monoconnected = site. So, > setting minimum holdtime to a high value (180) to protect PE may be = fine (no > need of BFD). >=20 > For a multiconnected site, whatever the protocol used, as you = mentionned, > it's better to rely on BFD or other connectivity detection mechanism = for fast > detection rather than tuning protocol timers.The main issue is that = CPE are > sometimes low cost and not supporting BFD :( > Then choosing protocol is just a matter of number/dynamicity of routes = on > the access (same as for monoconnected sites) -> choose static when = number > of route low, BGP otherwise. In case of BGP, if BFD is used, setting = minimum > holdtime to a high value (180) to protect PE may be fine (BFD ensuring > detection). If BFD not available on CPE, for this specific session, = setting a > minimum holdtime to a protecting/tested value (15) to protect PE and = as you > mention number of session with fast timers must be tracked. >=20 > Compared to what you mention, the main point to be added in BCP is the > difference that should be made between monoconnected sites (no BFD , = no > fast detection needed) and multiconnected sites (fast detection = needed). > Sometimes, some SP are using same rule for all BGP access, but it's = not pretty > good for scaling ... >=20 > One other issue to deal with could be persistent flapping of PE-CE BGP > session (link issue ... Negotiation issue ...) =3D> BGP = DampPeerOscillation > needed there but not well implemented >=20 >=20 > 2) Network Event >=20 > As for PE-CE issues, we can fall into process priorization issue = there. When a > PE loose a direct link, or when there is a link failure near a set of = PEs. PEs have > to update their FIB and possibly hundreds thousands of VPN routes = because > the change cause an interface change or a MPLS transport label change. = We > already saw that some routers with bad (old) FIB implementations and = bad > process priorization are going at 100% CPU updating ISIS routes in RT = and FIB > and then VPN routes in RT and FIBs. During the 100% CPU, router is = loosing > PE-CE BGP sessions or ISIS adjacency because of bad process = priorization. > Now with H-FIB implementation in codes, the issue is more hidden as it > requires less processing :) >=20 >=20 > 3) Route Scale >=20 > In the number of routes a PE must support, you can add ISIS routes, = LDP > FECs, and possibly TE tunnels that are impacting the global scaling = too. >=20 > Here I propose to separate this section between PE scaling, ASBR = scaling, RR > scaling and address each part separately. You are mainly talking about = PEs > here but ASBR and RRs are bottlenecks too. >=20 > "Most PE routers use the absence of a > given VRF instance (or RD/RT filtering) to limit the number of = routes > that they must actually carry, but this is sometimes of limited > utility for a couple of reasons. First, it leads to an = inconsistent > routing table footprint from one PE router to the next, and it can > change with every new customer turned up on the router. This leads > to non-deterministic performance and scale." >=20 > =3D> I don't agree on all stuffs there. Limiting routes imported by PE = is clearly > helping controlplane. If you are importing all routes, then scaling = impact is > clearly implementation dependant : at least, router will have more = memory > consumption (so it should support millions of BGP routes !), and = possibly CPU > usage too (more nexthop reachability computation depending on how it's > done...). > As you mentionned, if PE doesn't import all routes, it requires to = send route- > refresh to RR each time a new VRF is provisionned. With million routes = on RR, > it's impacting, as it could take some minutes (5-10-20 min) to receive = the > routes , and only few routes will be accepted , all others will be = denied. > Formatting RIB-OUT upon route-refresh is something costly for the RR = (could > impact transient update propagation time). In our case, we are = aggregating > route-refresh request at RR level every x seconds to permit the RR to = format > one time and serve multiple PEs with the same update formatting = action. >=20 > RTC is clearly helping there by just formatting/sending the requested = routes > and I think there is no issue with using RTC (this is another debate = !) >=20 > "First, it leads to an inconsistent > routing table footprint from one PE router to the next, and it can > change with every new customer turned up on the router" > =3D> Yes, but is this an issue ? I agree that it could be better that = all PEs having > same set of routes, but even with current hardware , this doesn't = scale ... >=20 > "This leads > to non-deterministic performance and scale." =3D> VPN footprint of > customers could be really different, I agree that some customers are > spanning among most of PEs, but it's not the case of all. Based on our > experience, PEs have different profiles in terms of VRFs. >=20 >=20 > "In addition, customers may request the use > of BGP multipath for faster failover or better load balancing, = which > has the net effect of installing more active routes into the table, > rather than simply selecting the single best path." > =3D> I think MP has a greater impact on FIB rather than in pure = controlplane > even if there is generally FIB structures in controlpane ... >=20 >=20 > Regarding RD policy, I agree with your points, but now the choice can = change > as there is some solution like add path, ORR, best external that could = permit > fast restoration with same RD policy (as in non VPN environment) =3D> = but I > agree that you still do not increase number of nets, but you will = increase > number of paths ... >=20 >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Stephane >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Message d'origine----- > De : l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] De la part = de > George, Wes > Envoy=E9 : mardi 6 mars 2012 22:27 > =C0 : l3vpn@ietf.org > Cc : rtgarea-ads@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org > Objet : updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request >=20 > Hello all - >=20 > Rob and I have completed a revision of our draft discussing L3VPN = scaling > considerations. We've made some changes to the document structure to > make it flow better, and we think that we've added enough of the body = that > it is ready for discussion during a WG meeting. However, since L3VPN = is not > meeting during IETF in Paris, we're wondering if we should perhaps ask = for > time in the Routing area open meeting/RTGAREA WG instead? >=20 > Either way, comments are still very welcome, especially if you can = help us > bolster the currently weak section on multicast VPN scale. >=20 > Abstract >=20 > This document discusses scaling considerations unique to > implementation of Layer 3 (IP) Virtual Private Networks, discusses = a > few best practices, and identifies gaps in the current tools and > techniques which are making it more difficult for operators to = cost- > effectively scale and manage their L3VPN deployments. >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gs-vpn-scaling-01 >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Wes George >=20 >=20 > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject = to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended = solely for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you = are not the > intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to = the > contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and = may be > unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the = sender > immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this = E-mail > and any printout. >=20 > __________________________________________________________ > __________________________________________________________ > _____ >=20 > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez = recu ce > message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les = messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a = ete > altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >=20 > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or = privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and = delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for = messages > that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. From wesley.george@twcable.com Thu Mar 8 13:13:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737FE21E8048 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:13:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.876 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.876 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.272, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Quib8vgK-a6F for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:13:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFED321F8691 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:13:01 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.15 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,553,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="350901489" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.15]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 08 Mar 2012 16:11:56 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.26]) by PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.15]) with mapi; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:12:17 -0500 From: "George, Wes" To: "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:12:15 -0500 Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Topic: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Index: Acz73jZNIwy3VR2RQveW+x31Ps+7zABSNHNgABHRkZA= Message-ID: References: <9198_1331212584_4F58B128_9198_2057_5_4FC3556A36EE3646A09DAA60429F533507E94CD5@PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <9198_1331212584_4F58B128_9198_2057_5_4FC3556A36EE3646A09DAA60429F533507E94CD5@PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:13:05 -0000 Thanks for the comments, we'll certainly incorporate them into our next rev= ision. A couple of responses inline below... Wes > -----Original Message----- > From: stephane.litkowski@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com= ] > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 8:16 AM > To: George, Wes; l3vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request > "Most PE routers use the absence of a > given VRF instance (or RD/RT filtering) to limit the number of routes > that they must actually carry, but this is sometimes of limited > utility for a couple of reasons. First, it leads to an inconsistent > routing table footprint from one PE router to the next, and it can > change with every new customer turned up on the router. This leads > to non-deterministic performance and scale." > > =3D> I don't agree on all stuffs there. Limiting routes imported by PE is > clearly helping controlplane. If you are importing all routes, then scali= ng > impact is clearly implementation dependant : at least, router will have m= ore > memory consumption (so it should support millions of BGP routes !), and > possibly CPU usage too (more nexthop reachability computation depending o= n how > it's done...). [WEG] I think I need to clarify what we meant here - this is not saying tha= t limiting which routes the PE imports based on which VRFs are configured i= s a bad thing. Rather, it is pointing out that this doesn't always help ver= y much when considering how to increase scale. It it only helps if the same= VRFs aren't present on every router. If the VRFs carrying the most routes = are present on every PE in the network, they're being imported and carried = in every PE, meaning you gain less value from the optimization. Yes, it's t= rue that not every VRF is present on every router, but it often makes more = of a difference whether the VRF has a large or small number of routes, and = the provider has little control over it - in other words, it's a gamble. The comment about inconsistent routes from one router to the next is more a= bout managing capacity and provisioning - as noted other places in the docu= ment, this is about trying not to strand capacity. This inconsistency means= that it's one more scaling vector that must be tracked when determining th= e appropriate place to provision the next customer. > > "First, it leads to an inconsistent > routing table footprint from one PE router to the next, and it can > change with every new customer turned up on the router" > =3D> Yes, but is this an issue ? I agree that it could be better that all= PEs > having same set of routes, but even with current hardware , this doesn't = scale > ... [WEG] Again, not saying that you should do the opposite, only pointing out = the result This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From wesley.george@twcable.com Thu Mar 8 13:19:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEDF21E803E for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:19:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WFxx5U9qS8pH for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:19:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D140D21E8039 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:19:08 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.15 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,553,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="350908149" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.15]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 08 Mar 2012 16:18:47 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.26]) by PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.15]) with mapi; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:19:08 -0500 From: "George, Wes" To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" , "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:19:07 -0500 Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Topic: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Index: Acz73jZNIwy3VR2RQveW+x31Ps+7zABSNHNgAAj284AACVEUEA== Message-ID: References: <9198_1331212584_4F58B128_9198_2057_5_4FC3556A36EE3646A09DAA60429F533507E94CD5@PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0795D3CE@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C0795D3CE@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:19:09 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) [mailto:rajiva@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:51 AM > To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com; George, Wes; l3vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request > > > "First, it leads to an inconsistent > > routing table footprint from one PE router to the next, and it can > > change with every new customer turned up on the router" > > =3D> Yes, but is this an issue ? I agree that it could be better that a= ll PEs > having > > same set of routes, but even with current hardware , this doesn't scale= ... > > +1. Frankly, why load the router with routes that it doesn't need (becaus= e it > has no customers). > Inconsistency in VPN routing table per PE is desired for sanity, IMO. > [WEG] I think I answered this with my response to Stephane, but if you stil= l have questions after that response, let me know. > > "In addition, customers may request the use > > of BGP multipath for faster failover or better load balancing, which > > has the net effect of installing more active routes into the table, > > rather than simply selecting the single best path." > > True, but that's independent of L3VPN. > [WEG] That may be so, but my experience has been that SPs are less likely t= o be willing to enable MP for standard internet traffic, while they will do= it for L3VPN. The application as an enterprise network instead of internet= connectivity drives a different set of expectations about the performance = of the network, design tradeoffs that must be made at the carrier's behest,= etc. Keep in mind that in many cases, L3VPNs are replacing old point-to-po= int networks or L2VPNs using legacy Frame Relay, ATM, or L2TPv3. The custom= ers often don't want to make major architectural changes to their routing, = and therefore expect the SP to do the same things that they were doing betw= een their routers before. This may well include multipath. Therefore it's m= ore pertinent in this context. Thanks Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From robert@raszuk.net Thu Mar 8 17:00:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476F321E801B for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:00:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ntFQOnJOiJZy for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5550021E8010 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:00:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 15818 invoked by uid 399); 9 Mar 2012 01:00:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?216.69.69.249?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@216.69.69.249) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 9 Mar 2012 01:00:21 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 216.69.69.249 Message-ID: <4F595623.7060309@raszuk.net> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 02:00:19 +0100 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "George, Wes" Subject: Re: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request References: <9198_1331212584_4F58B128_9198_2057_5_4FC3556A36EE3646A09DAA60429F533507E94CD5@PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 01:00:31 -0000 Hi, > [WEG] I think I need to clarify what we meant here - this is not > saying that limiting which routes the PE imports based on which VRFs > are configured is a bad thing. Rather, it is pointing out that this > doesn't always help very much when considering how to increase scale. > It it only helps if the same VRFs aren't present on every router. If > the VRFs carrying the most routes are present on every PE in the > network, they're being imported and carried in every PE, meaning you > gain less value from the optimization. Yes, it's true that not every > VRF is present on every router, but it often makes more of a > difference whether the VRF has a large or small number of routes, and > the provider has little control over it - in other words, it's a > gamble. The comment about inconsistent routes from one router to the > next is more about managing capacity and provisioning - as noted > other places in the document, this is about trying not to strand > capacity. This inconsistency means that it's one more scaling vector > that must be tracked when determining the appropriate place to > provision the next customer. Actually this problem you are pointing out can be very well solved by using draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub idea. Then on any PEs you only keep local routes plus pointer to the hub VRF where the actual lookup will happen. If you place such hub PE wisely (note that such hub PE does not need to have sites attached to it) for example on the POP to core boundary your scaling becomes much more deterministic as compared with today's model. Further one could enable draft-ietf-grow-simple-va model for virtual hub to even further scale data plane when you have large multihomed sites in a VPN. Best regards, R. From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Mar 12 15:31:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7630421F8AA8; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:31:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.18 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R0myLJ52yr87; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7163621E8137; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Subject: Protocol Action: 'Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-02.txt) X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120312223121.19501.87152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:31:21 -0700 Cc: l3vpn chair , l3vpn mailing list , RFC Editor X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:31:23 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Wildcards in Multicast VPN Auto-Discovery Routes' (draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-02.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards/ Technical Summary In "Multicast Virtual Private Networks" (MVPNs), customer multicast flows are carried in "tunnels" through a service provider's network. The base specifications for MVPN define BGP multicast VPN "auto-discovery" routes, and specify how to use an auto-discovery route to advertise the fact that an individual customer multicast flow is being carried in a particular tunnel. However, those specifications do not provide a way to specify, in a single such route, that multiple customer flows are being carried in a single tunnel. Those specifications also do not provide a way to advertise that a particular tunnel is to be used by default to carry all customer flows, except in the case where that tunnel is joined by all the provider edge routers of the MVPN. This document eliminates these restrictions by specifying the use of "wildcard" elements in the customer flow identifiers. With wildcard elements, a single auto-discovery route can refer to multiple customer flows, or even to all customer flows. Working Group Summary This document is a product of L3VPN WG. There were no technical concerns raised during the WG Last Call. Document Quality There are no known concerns with the quality of this document. Personnel Ben Niven-Jenkins (ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk) is the Document Shepherd for this document Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director. From DanielC@orckit.com Tue Mar 13 01:30:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A533721F8822; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:30:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.239 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Klgi0nvbz4Px; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tlvmail1.orckit.com (tlvmail1.orckit.com [109.226.33.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FAB21F8821; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:30:24 -0700 (PDT) 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 Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:30:23 +0200 Message-ID: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670B03@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Index: Acz73jZNIwy3VR2RQveW+x31Ps+7zAFD1zjg References: From: "Daniel Cohn" To: "George, Wes" , Cc: rtgarea-ads@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:30:25 -0000 Hi Wes and Rob, First of all thanks for writing this draft, it does a great job of compiling L3VPN scalability issues in one place and I think it will be very helpful for developers and operators. Few questions/comments: - I understand/agree with the general assertion that BGP is inherently more scalable than IGPs, also in PE-CE application. But I don't understand the statement that "(IGPs) invoke additional processes on the router when compared to simply using BGP (which is already going be running on a router using MP-BGP for VPNs"). This is because even if BGP is already running on the router as PE-PE protocol, using BGP as PE-CE protocol will also typically required "additional processes" in the router as each BGP instance will typically run on a separate BGP process. Barring specification implementations, I don't see how BGP and IGPs as PE-CE differ in this aspect. - In the following paragraph:=20 "Where it may be possible to assign a single RD per L3VPN instance, and hence achieve some level of route aggregation on BGP speakers within the solution, this has some consequences for both convergence in the VPN (due to BGP convergence being relied upon) and in its potential to exacerbate geographic distance between PE and Route-reflector and is therefore undesirable in some circumstances" Are you referring to multiple-homed CE scenario, where the same NLRI will be advertised with different BGP next hops if the same RD is used? If yes, I think it should be clarified. If not, can you please explain to which scenario you refer? Also, what do you mean by "exacerbate geographic distance"? I don't understand the meaning of this expression nor the problem it describes. - Regarding the maximum number of routes per VRF limit, I think there should be some discussion on the PE behavior when the limit is reached, e.g.: what do you expect PE-CE and PE-PE protocols should do with routes they receive after the limit has been reached? Should these routes be stored and installed at the VRF when the route count goes below the limit (plus some hysteresis threshold of course)? Or should they also be discarded by the PE-CE/PE-PE routing protocols? If discarded, how will you resync with the neighbors/peers once the route count goes below the limit? Regards, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George, Wes Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:27 PM To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: rtgarea-ads@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org Subject: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Hello all - Rob and I have completed a revision of our draft discussing L3VPN scaling considerations. We've made some changes to the document structure to make it flow better, and we think that we've added enough of the body that it is ready for discussion during a WG meeting. However, since L3VPN is not meeting during IETF in Paris, we're wondering if we should perhaps ask for time in the Routing area open meeting/RTGAREA WG instead? Either way, comments are still very welcome, especially if you can help us bolster the currently weak section on multicast VPN scale. Abstract This document discusses scaling considerations unique to implementation of Layer 3 (IP) Virtual Private Networks, discusses a few best practices, and identifies gaps in the current tools and techniques which are making it more difficult for operators to cost- effectively scale and manage their L3VPN deployments. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gs-vpn-scaling-01 Thanks, Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. From robert@raszuk.net Tue Mar 13 01:57:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576D021F877F for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:57:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bcoXsvv-5z5s for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A1F221F875E for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:57:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25685 invoked by uid 399); 13 Mar 2012 08:57:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.57?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.181.251) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 13 Mar 2012 08:57:15 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.31.181.251 Message-ID: <4F5F0BEB.9010609@raszuk.net> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:57:15 +0100 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Cohn Subject: Re: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request References: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670B03@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670B03@tlvmail1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtgarea-ads@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:57:17 -0000 Hi Daniel, > Few questions/comments: > > - I understand/agree with the general assertion that BGP is inherently > more scalable than IGPs, also in PE-CE application. But I don't > understand the statement that "(IGPs) invoke additional processes on the > router when compared to simply using BGP (which is already going be > running on a router using MP-BGP for VPNs"). This is because even if BGP > is already running on the router as PE-PE protocol, using BGP as PE-CE > protocol will also typically required "additional processes" in the > router as each BGP instance will typically run on a separate BGP > process. Barring specification implementations, I don't see how BGP and > IGPs as PE-CE differ in this aspect. BGP does not have a new process/thread/data structure on a per VPN basis. All VPN routes are stored in single vpnv4 trie and the only real overhead you add is additional cycles for new neighbor(s) update generation. To make the routes unique across VPNs RD is part of such trie. That is the same on the PE as it on the RR. Contrary to this when you use IGP on the PE-CE for example OSPF you need to keep an istance of LSDB as I am not aware of any efforts to modify IGP LSDB to be VPN aware. Same for topology SPF, etc ... RIP could be implemented much easier to be VPN aware how ever as it's use is marginal on the PE-CE I am not sure if this would be the high on the vendor's roadmap. > - In the following paragraph: > > "Where it may be possible to assign a single RD per L3VPN instance, and > hence achieve some level of route aggregation on BGP speakers within the > solution, this has some consequences for both convergence in the VPN > (due to BGP convergence being relied upon) and in its potential to > exacerbate geographic distance between PE and Route-reflector and is > therefore undesirable in some circumstances" > > Are you referring to multiple-homed CE scenario, where the same NLRI > will be advertised with different BGP next hops if the same RD is used? Yes you are correct. For multi-homed sites each advertising same prefix via different PEs using same RD on both PEs in the corresponding VRFs will result in the vpnv4 RR making the best path selection across both paths and advertising only a single best path. Then remote PEs would receive only one path and could not perform any fast connectivity restoration techniques (PIC as example). > - Regarding the maximum number of routes per VRF limit, I think there > should be some discussion on the PE behavior when the limit is reached, > e.g.: what do you expect PE-CE and PE-PE protocols should do with routes > they receive after the limit has been reached? Should these routes be > stored and installed at the VRF when the route count goes below the > limit (plus some hysteresis threshold of course)? Or should they also be > discarded by the PE-CE/PE-PE routing protocols? If discarded, how will > you resync with the neighbors/peers once the route count goes below the > limit? VRF limit is typically reflected by control plane protocols as RIB install failure. Those routes therefor are not advertised to CEs/RRs, but are still kept in the BGP table. In those cases the syslog message raises NOC alarm. I think it is implementation dependent if they are allowed to be retried to be installed into VRFs automagically when the limit allows. No matter how you put it this is a mess for a given VPN and rather VRF limit was designed to be used as red light protecting other VPNs on a PE. Perhaps along discussing VRF limit authors should also discuss BGP prefix limit as proper correlation of both seems helpful. Best, R. From DanielC@orckit.com Wed Mar 14 01:04:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 873F321F8598; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:04:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z0VhLJ8L+GzA; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tlvmail1.orckit.com (tlvmail1.orckit.com [109.226.33.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE7421F8577; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:04:00 -0700 (PDT) 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 Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:03:58 +0200 Message-ID: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670C45@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: <4F5F0BEB.9010609@raszuk.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Index: Ac0A96+vHPSqH+52SJucPVgurWRguQAwF+TA References: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670B03@tlvmail1> <4F5F0BEB.9010609@raszuk.net> From: "Daniel Cohn" To: Cc: rtgarea-ads@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:04:01 -0000 Hi Robert, please see inline with [DC]. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:robert@raszuk.net]=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:57 AM To: Daniel Cohn Cc: George, Wes; l3vpn@ietf.org; rtgarea-ads@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Hi Daniel, > Few questions/comments: > > - I understand/agree with the general assertion that BGP is inherently > more scalable than IGPs, also in PE-CE application. But I don't > understand the statement that "(IGPs) invoke additional processes on the > router when compared to simply using BGP (which is already going be > running on a router using MP-BGP for VPNs"). This is because even if BGP > is already running on the router as PE-PE protocol, using BGP as PE-CE > protocol will also typically required "additional processes" in the > router as each BGP instance will typically run on a separate BGP > process. Barring specification implementations, I don't see how BGP and > IGPs as PE-CE differ in this aspect. BGP does not have a new process/thread/data structure on a per VPN basis. All VPN routes are stored in single vpnv4 trie and the only real=20 overhead you add is additional cycles for new neighbor(s) update=20 generation. To make the routes unique across VPNs RD is part of such=20 trie. That is the same on the PE as it on the RR. Contrary to this when you use IGP on the PE-CE for example OSPF you need to keep an istance of LSDB as I am not aware of any efforts to modify=20 IGP LSDB to be VPN aware. Same for topology SPF, etc ... [DC] I think this is getting too much into implementation-specific issues. What you write above is related to routing information structure, but this does not necessarily mandate implementation architecture. For example I am familiar with multi-instance OSPF implementations that run a single process/thread for all instances, while internally adding instance information to the LSDB. RIP could be implemented much easier to be VPN aware how ever as it's=20 use is marginal on the PE-CE I am not sure if this would be the high on=20 the vendor's roadmap. > - In the following paragraph: > > "Where it may be possible to assign a single RD per L3VPN instance, and > hence achieve some level of route aggregation on BGP speakers within the > solution, this has some consequences for both convergence in the VPN > (due to BGP convergence being relied upon) and in its potential to > exacerbate geographic distance between PE and Route-reflector and is > therefore undesirable in some circumstances" > > Are you referring to multiple-homed CE scenario, where the same NLRI > will be advertised with different BGP next hops if the same RD is used? Yes you are correct. For multi-homed sites each advertising same prefix=20 via different PEs using same RD on both PEs in the corresponding VRFs=20 will result in the vpnv4 RR making the best path selection across both=20 paths and advertising only a single best path. Then remote PEs would=20 receive only one path and could not perform any fast connectivity=20 restoration techniques (PIC as example). [DC] Thanks for the clarification. I suggest you add it to the draft. You didn't answer the following question though: " Also, what do you mean by "exacerbate geographic distance"? I don't understand the meaning of this expression nor the problem it describes." > - Regarding the maximum number of routes per VRF limit, I think there > should be some discussion on the PE behavior when the limit is reached, > e.g.: what do you expect PE-CE and PE-PE protocols should do with routes > they receive after the limit has been reached? Should these routes be > stored and installed at the VRF when the route count goes below the > limit (plus some hysteresis threshold of course)? Or should they also be > discarded by the PE-CE/PE-PE routing protocols? If discarded, how will > you resync with the neighbors/peers once the route count goes below the > limit? VRF limit is typically reflected by control plane protocols as RIB=20 install failure. Those routes therefor are not advertised to CEs/RRs,=20 but are still kept in the BGP table. In those cases the syslog message raises NOC alarm. I think it is=20 implementation dependent if they are allowed to be retried to be=20 installed into VRFs automagically when the limit allows. No matter how you put it this is a mess for a given VPN and rather VRF=20 limit was designed to be used as red light protecting other VPNs on a=20 PE. Perhaps along discussing VRF limit authors should also discuss BGP=20 prefix limit as proper correlation of both seems helpful. [DC] I agree. Also OSPF LS limit. Best, R. From robert@raszuk.net Wed Mar 14 01:23:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37B621F86E1 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:23:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.244 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.244 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.245, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YHC93lePkjiJ for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5682421F86E5 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 4267 invoked by uid 399); 14 Mar 2012 08:16:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.57?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.9.121.199) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 14 Mar 2012 08:16:26 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.9.121.199 Message-ID: <4F6053DA.2000209@raszuk.net> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:16:26 +0100 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Cohn Subject: Re: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request References: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670B03@tlvmail1> <4F5F0BEB.9010609@raszuk.net> <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670C45@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670C45@tlvmail1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtgarea-ads@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:23:09 -0000 Hi Daniel, > [DC] I think this is getting too much into implementation-specific > issues. What you write above is related to routing information > structure, but this does not necessarily mandate implementation > architecture. Very true. I was only bringing examples of most widely known/used implementations. > For example I am familiar with multi-instance OSPF > implementations that run a single process/thread for all instances, > while internally adding instance information to the LSDB. Correct. But one needs to keep in mind that multi-instance IGP proposals for all practical purposes are limited to small amount (4,8,16) while L3VPNs clearly goes over 1000s. > [DC] Thanks for the clarification. I suggest you add it to the draft. I think Wes will :) I am not co-author of this document. > You didn't answer the following question though: " Also, what do you > mean by "exacerbate geographic distance"? I don't understand the meaning > of this expression nor the problem it describes." The way I read this is that it says that using same RD will on one hand allow to limit number of paths for a given VPN however among other issues it exposes inaccurate BGP best path selection problem. In those cases VPNv4/v6 route reflector will be selecting best path in his IGP location in the network (or with completely disabled metric to next hop comaprison) what will result for some (most) PEs to get suboptimal path from such RR. The problem is well known and some time back I have proposed general solution to this issue. It is described in: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-01 and it is applicable to both IPv4/IPv6 as well as same RD L3VPNs. Best regards, R. From wesley.george@twcable.com Thu Mar 15 06:00:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A954221F86FD; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:00:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.415, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PBMDmpaRAilg; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C161821F86AB; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:00:46 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.14 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,591,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="354100099" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.14]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 15 Mar 2012 09:00:05 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.26]) by PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.14]) with mapi; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:00:38 -0400 From: "George, Wes" To: Daniel Cohn , "robert@raszuk.net" Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:00:37 -0400 Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Topic: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request Thread-Index: Ac0A96+vHPSqH+52SJucPVgurWRguQAwF+TAADw2aQA= Message-ID: References: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670B03@tlvmail1> <4F5F0BEB.9010609@raszuk.net> <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670C45@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670C45@tlvmail1> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "rtgarea-ads@ietf.org" , "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:00:50 -0000 Daniel - thanks for the review and the comments. Robert answered a lot of the questions, so thanks to him for that, a few ad= ditional points inline below. Thanks, Wes > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Cohn [mailto:DanielC@orckit.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:04 AM > To: robert@raszuk.net > Cc: George, Wes; l3vpn@ietf.org; rtgarea-ads@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.= org > Subject: RE: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request > > > BGP does not have a new process/thread/data structure on a per VPN > basis. > [snip] > > [DC] I think this is getting too much into implementation-specific > issues. What you write above is related to routing information > structure, but this does not necessarily mandate implementation > architecture. For example I am familiar with multi-instance OSPF > implementations that run a single process/thread for all instances, > while internally adding instance information to the LSDB. > [WEG] I meant it in a slightly more simplistic way... A standard PE will be= running an IGP and BGP for PE-PE and PE-P route exchange. Adding VRFs to B= GP will add memory state, but is not usually going to result in spawning co= mpletely separate BGP processes. The details are indeed implementation spec= ific, but we thought that this was a reasonable assumption based on the com= mon implementations. Contrast this with a PE that is doing EIGRP, OSPF, etc= as PE-CE routing protocol. If IS-IS is the chosen IGP, you're now running = another routing protocol when you fire up OSPF. Same is true if you're alre= ady running OSPF as your IGP and you fire up EIGRP for a customer. Even if = you are running OSPF as IGP and only use OSPF as PE-CE (vs adding EIGRP, et= c), you're likely starting up another instance. Yes, it is possible for opt= imizations that manage it more like BGP does (one instance, but VRF aware t= o separate things properly within that instance), but IMO that's almost wor= se, because now you've potentially gone and tied your core IGP convergence = and scale limitations to the customer-facing routing machinery. Unless the = implementation is intelligent enough to prioritize global table IGP first, = and only after that is done proceed with PE-CE, you're now in a race condit= ion, to say nothing about how it handles large networks with lots of elemen= ts which can challenge the scaling limitations of the implementation all by= themselves. I'm not sure it makes sense to get into this within the docume= nt since it is so implementation specific, but I'm open to discussion one w= ay or the other. > > > - Regarding the maximum number of routes per VRF limit, I think there > > should be some discussion on the PE behavior when the limit is > reached, [snip] > > No matter how you put it this is a mess for a given VPN and rather VRF > limit was designed to be used as red light protecting other VPNs on a > PE. Perhaps along discussing VRF limit authors should also discuss BGP > prefix limit as proper correlation of both seems helpful. > [WEG] This is an interesting distinction. We likely need to make it clearer= in the document, because there are definitely differences in how one might= set a max-prefix limit per-session vs how you set the route-limit for the = VRF. There are probably some things to add to the gap discussion as well, s= ince there isn't a good method for end-users to know that they have a probl= em with route-limits. At least with max-prefix exceeded, you get a session = shutdown that is a good indicator to both peers that something is amiss. If= routes just get dropped, the sending party has no way of knowing why until= they call in a trouble ticket and/or the SP notices the alarms on route-li= mits being exceeded. This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From robert@raszuk.net Thu Mar 15 06:11:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4119221F854B for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:11:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id loMhLg6CRj6O for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B8621F8539 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 20448 invoked by uid 399); 15 Mar 2012 13:11:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.91?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@83.31.230.226) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 15 Mar 2012 13:11:52 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 83.31.230.226 Message-ID: <4F61EA97.3030509@raszuk.net> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:11:51 +0100 From: Robert Raszuk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "George, Wes" Subject: Re: updated draft-gs-l3vpn-scaling & agenda request References: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670B03@tlvmail1> <4F5F0BEB.9010609@raszuk.net> <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670C45@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" , "rtgarea-ads@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:11:54 -0000 Hi Wes, > At least with max-prefix exceeded, you get a session shutdown that is > a good indicator to both peers that something is amiss. If routes > just get dropped, the sending party has no way of knowing why until > they call in a trouble ticket and/or the SP notices the alarms on > route-limits being exceeded. I am glad you say so ... especially in the light of new BGP defaults where due to treat-as-withdraw upon attribute error in the update message sending party has no way of knowing. Worse until the AS which does this has it's NOC script updated to catch it from the syslog even there such holes may get punched completely unnoticed. My hope is that BGP Operational Message may address the issue. In fact I think we could update the latest draft to also consider a message when vrf-limit is reached. Best, R. From zzhang@juniper.net Sun Mar 18 21:05:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F5621F8525 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:05:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.348, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vXARBGFVEEZ8 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2321921F851D for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT2awivcBwp1Dg94hVBD/gO3crNZygt3Z@postini.com; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:05:34 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:05:23 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:05:22 -0400 From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" To: "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:05:09 -0400 Subject: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0FhXn+CtIbvu40R/i91c4LcDNByA== Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-cr-hashedpuzzle: qOc= IKoR J98/ KOyl OpxJ PlwK b1zv j43o ke1l k6+C mM/t oB5m pAke wJIx yhNC z1IP; 5; YQBuAGQAeQAuAGQAYQAuAGcAcgBlAGUAbgBAAGIAdAAuAGMAbwBtADsAbAAzAHYAcABuAEAAaQBlAHQAZgAuAG8AcgBnADsAcAByAGEAZABlAGUAcAAuAGoAYQBpAG4AQABhAGwAYwBhAHQAZQBsAC0AbAB1AGMAZQBuAHQALgBjAG8AbQA7AHMAYQA5ADMANgAyAEAAYQB0AHQALgBjAG8AbQA7AHMAYQBtAGUAZQByAGcAQABjAGkAcwBjAG8ALgBjAG8AbQA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {58846647-31D9-4882-BFC6-135ED1DEFECA}; egB6AGgAYQBuAGcAQABqAHUAbgBpAHAAZQByAC4AbgBlAHQA; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 04:05:09 GMT; ZAByAGEAZgB0AC0AegB6AGgAYQBuAGcALQBtAHYAcABuAC0AbQBpAGIALQAwADAALgB0AHgAdAA= x-cr-puzzleid: {58846647-31D9-4882-BFC6-135ED1DEFECA} acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ASIF, SAUD" , Pradeep Jain , Sameer Gulrajani X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 04:05:35 -0000 WG chairs, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt would like to request for a pol= l for accepting the work as a WG item. Thanks. Jeffrey From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Sun Mar 18 22:57:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE1A21F8547 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 22:57:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.815, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YOSoFsKjaVUD for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 22:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5E711E8072 for ; Sun, 18 Mar 2012 22:57:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q2J5vARS006168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:57:11 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.40]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:57:10 +0100 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:57:09 +0100 Subject: RE: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0FhXn+CtIbvu40R/i91c4LcDNByAAD6JWw Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671E753C60@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13 Cc: "ASIF, SAUD" , Sameer Gulrajani , "Jain, Pradeep G \(Pradeep\)" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:57:21 -0000 support -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J= effrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Sent: maandag 19 maart 2012 5:05 To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: ASIF, SAUD; Jain, Pradeep G (Pradeep); Sameer Gulrajani Subject: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt WG chairs, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt would like to request for a pol= l for accepting the work as a WG item. Thanks. Jeffrey From praveen.muley@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Mar 19 00:18:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD92C21F851A for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:18:59 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 77Kv4lj7ySA9 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D82F21F8518 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q2J7IuwV015504 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:18:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q2J7IusP014147 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:18:56 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:18:56 -0500 From: "Muley, Praveen V (Praveen)" To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:18:54 -0500 Subject: RE: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0FhXn+CtIbvu40R/i91c4LcDNByAAD6JWwAALYMEA= Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BF2A7FA7@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671E753C60@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671E753C60@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 Cc: "ASIF, SAUD" , "Jain, Pradeep G \(Pradeep\)" , Sameer Gulrajani X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:19:00 -0000 =20 Support -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J= effrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Sent: maandag 19 maart 2012 5:05 To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: ASIF, SAUD; Jain, Pradeep G (Pradeep); Sameer Gulrajani Subject: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt WG chairs, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt would like to request for a pol= l for accepting the work as a WG item. Thanks. Jeffrey From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Mon Mar 19 00:22:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FA121F851C for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:22:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PpEXb0VjvABt for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8EB21F851A for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q2J7Makm026781; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:22:37 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.140]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:22:30 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:22:29 -0400 Subject: RE: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0FhXn+CtIbvu40R/i91c4LcDNByAAG3FVA Message-ID: <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF61911598890@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ASIF, SAUD" , Sameer Gulrajani , Pradeep Jain X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:22:46 -0000 Yes/support Regards, Jeff -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J= effrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:05 PM To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: ASIF, SAUD; Pradeep Jain; Sameer Gulrajani Subject: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt WG chairs, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt would like to request for a pol= l for accepting the work as a WG item. Thanks. Jeffrey From stephane.litkowski@orange.com Mon Mar 19 00:38:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A01121F8609 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.915, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QaQABA6qPjxJ for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C81E21F854A for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1B3F22DC151; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:38:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCC21.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.168.72.145]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id F09D335C0A8; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:38:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.168.74.47]) by PUEXCC21.nanterre.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:38:18 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:38:17 +0100 Message-ID: <30258_1332142699_4F66E26B_30258_7404_1_4FC3556A36EE3646A09DAA60429F533507F9DA5A@PUEXCBL0.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0FhXn+CtIbvu40R/i91c4LcDNByAAHcRPg References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> From: To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Mar 2012 07:38:19.0024 (UTC) FILETIME=[40E61100:01CD05A3] X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.3.19.23315 Cc: "ASIF, SAUD" , Sameer Gulrajani , Pradeep Jain X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:38:21 -0000 Support =20 -----Message d'origine----- De : l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de J= effrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Envoy=E9 : lundi 19 mars 2012 05:05 =C0 : l3vpn@ietf.org Cc : ASIF, SAUD; Pradeep Jain; Sameer Gulrajani Objet : draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt WG chairs, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt would like to request for a pol= l for accepting the work as a WG item. Thanks. Jeffrey ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for message= s that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Mon Mar 19 05:11:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471EE21F864D for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.69 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.456, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OTDrTQRKdfWP for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr6.networksolutionsemail.com (omr6.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A162B21F858A for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:11:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr11 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr6.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q2JCB5ns031832 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:11:05 -0400 Authentication-Results: cm-omr11 smtp.user=william.zayas@fibercrossing.net; auth=pass (LOGIN) X-Authenticated-UID: william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Received: from [66.87.123.60] ([66.87.123.60:51553] helo=[21.237.237.60]) by cm-omr11 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id A4/3F-06869-752276F4; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:11:05 -0400 To: zzhang@juniper.net, "=?utf-8?B?bDN2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmc=?=" Message-ID: From: "=?utf-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBaYXlhcw==?=" Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IGRyYWZ0LXp6aGFuZy1tdnBuLW1pYi0wMC50eHQ=?= Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:11:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_0_1332159089365" Cc: =?utf-8?B?QVNJRiwgU0FVRA==?= , =?utf-8?B?U2FtZWVyIEd1bHJhamFuaQ==?= , =?utf-8?B?UHJhZGVlcCBKYWlu?= X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:11:07 -0000 ------=_Part_0_1332159089365 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline U3VwcG9ydC4KCgoKCgpTZW50IGZyb20gbXkgSFRDIHNtYXJ0cGhvbmUgb24gdGhlIE5vdyBOZXR3 b3JrIGZyb20gU3ByaW50IQoKLS0tLS0gUmVwbHkgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLQpGcm9tOiAiSmVmZnJl eSAoWmhhb2h1aSkgWmhhbmciIDx6emhhbmdAanVuaXBlci5uZXQ+ClRvOiAibDN2cG5AaWV0Zi5v cmciIDxsM3ZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZz4KQ2M6ICJBU0lGLCBTQVVEIiA8c2E5MzYyQGF0dC5jb20+LCAi UHJhZGVlcCBKYWluIiA8cHJhZGVlcC5qYWluQGFsY2F0ZWwtbHVjZW50LmNvbT4sICJTYW1lZXIg R3VscmFqYW5pIiA8c2FtZWVyZ0BjaXNjby5jb20+ClN1YmplY3Q6IGRyYWZ0LXp6aGFuZy1tdnBu LW1pYi0wMC50eHQKRGF0ZTogTW9uLCBNYXIgMTksIDIwMTIgMTI6MDUgYW0KCgpXRyBjaGFpcnMs CgpUaGUgYXV0aG9ycyBvZiBkcmFmdC16emhhbmctbXZwbi1taWItMDAudHh0IHdvdWxkIGxpa2Ug dG8gcmVxdWVzdCBmb3IgYSBwb2xsIGZvciBhY2NlcHRpbmcgdGhlIHdvcmsgYXMgYSBXRyBpdGVt LgoKVGhhbmtzLgpKZWZmcmV5Cgo= ------=_Part_0_1332159089365 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline U3VwcG9ydC48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+PGJyPjxicj5TZW50IGZyb20gbXkgSFRDIHNtYXJ0cGhv bmUgb24gdGhlIE5vdyBOZXR3b3JrIGZyb20gU3ByaW50ITxicj48YnI+LS0tLS0gUmVwbHkgbWVz c2FnZSAtLS0tLTxicj5Gcm9tOiAmcXVvdDtKZWZmcmV5IChaaGFvaHVpKSBaaGFuZyZxdW90OyAm bHQ7enpoYW5nQGp1bmlwZXIubmV0Jmd0Ozxicj5UbzogJnF1b3Q7bDN2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmcmcXVv dDsgJmx0O2wzdnBuQGlldGYub3JnJmd0Ozxicj5DYzogJnF1b3Q7QVNJRiwgU0FVRCZxdW90OyAm bHQ7c2E5MzYyQGF0dC5jb20mZ3Q7LCAmcXVvdDtQcmFkZWVwIEphaW4mcXVvdDsgJmx0O3ByYWRl ZXAuamFpbkBhbGNhdGVsLWx1Y2VudC5jb20mZ3Q7LCAmcXVvdDtTYW1lZXIgR3VscmFqYW5pJnF1 b3Q7ICZsdDtzYW1lZXJnQGNpc2NvLmNvbSZndDs8YnI+U3ViamVjdDogZHJhZnQtenpoYW5nLW12 cG4tbWliLTAwLnR4dDxicj5EYXRlOiBNb24sIE1hciAxOSwgMjAxMiAxMjowNSBhbTxicj48YnI+ PGJyPldHIGNoYWlycyw8YnI+PGJyPlRoZSBhdXRob3JzIG9mIGRyYWZ0LXp6aGFuZy1tdnBuLW1p Yi0wMC50eHQgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byByZXF1ZXN0IGZvciBhIHBvbGwgZm9yIGFjY2VwdGluZyB0 aGUgd29yayBhcyBhIFdHIGl0ZW0uPGJyPjxicj5UaGFua3MuPGJyPkplZmZyZXk8YnI+PGJyPg== ------=_Part_0_1332159089365-- From marco@juniper.net Mon Mar 19 05:20:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E0721F8674 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:20:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHEpbOBRIJIZ for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241E321F8672 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT2ckkPmJbqEEVYKAykTaDCVG0mcNWCYC@postini.com; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:20:35 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:19:38 -0700 Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by p-cldfe01-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 05:19:38 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:19:37 -0400 From: Marco Rodrigues To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:19:35 -0400 Subject: Re: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0Fyoy/q/7zyxihQaGPtf8+Es7J5A== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ASIF, SAUD" , Sameer Gulrajani , Pradeep Jain X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:20:37 -0000 Support. Marco. From: Jeffrey Zhang > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:05:09 -0400 To: "l3vpn@ietf.org" > Cc: "ASIF, SAUD" >, Pradeep Jain >, Same= er Gulrajani > Subject: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt WG chairs, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt would like to request for a pol= l for accepting the work as a WG item. Thanks. Jeffrey From kurapati@juniper.net Mon Mar 19 07:24:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CF121F86F6 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:24:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dKT5kyMBPaim for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og127.obsmtp.com (exprod7og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C0921F86AA for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob127.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT2dBpp7ZomxccyW572BEJcfzC6muxod9@postini.com; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:24:41 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-bng.jnpr.net (10.211.204.20) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:19:31 -0700 Received: from EMBX02-BNG.jnpr.net ([fe80::8ce3:7a6:9990:3c6e]) by p-emfe02-bng.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:49:29 +0530 From: Pavan Kurapati To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:49:41 +0530 Subject: RE: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0FhXn+CtIbvu40R/i91c4LcDNByAAVdIAg Message-ID: <408677E9A8F78149B5DC29F87FBF27A94C0952D196@EMBX02-BNG.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ASIF, SAUD" , Sameer Gulrajani , Pradeep Jain X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:24:43 -0000 Support. Thanks, Pavan -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J= effrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 12:05 AM To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: ASIF, SAUD; Pradeep Jain; Sameer Gulrajani Subject: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt WG chairs, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt would like to request for a pol= l for accepting the work as a WG item. Thanks. Jeffrey From gandhi@juniper.net Mon Mar 19 07:34:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEE321F87D8 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64nMBMSQ+Fff for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og104.obsmtp.com (exprod7og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C6D21F8755 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob104.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT2dDqciDPFAtzTg0A65HJasfldElxn1C@postini.com; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:33:16 PDT Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::88f9:77fd:dfc:4d51%11]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:32:06 -0700 From: Arun Gandhi To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 07:32:05 -0700 Subject: RE: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0FhXn+CtIbvu40R/i91c4LcDNByAAV4Aqw Message-ID: <0EC737CDF53698408D52FF82864745BB5302E2C16C@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ASIF, SAUD" , Sameer Gulrajani , Pradeep Jain X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:34:18 -0000 Support. Thanks, Arun -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J= effrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 12:05 AM To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: ASIF, SAUD; Pradeep Jain; Sameer Gulrajani Subject: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt WG chairs, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt would like to request for a pol= l for accepting the work as a WG item. Thanks. Jeffrey From kurtw@juniper.net Mon Mar 19 09:05:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160FB21F87D4 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WOGBu96wqmVU for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C1421F8790 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT2dZUQn57oJxvbo3RpV7BnPXeZ66g9Yl@postini.com; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:05:43 PDT Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::88f9:77fd:dfc:4d51%11]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:04:15 -0700 From: Kurt Windisch To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:04:14 -0700 Subject: RE: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Topic: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0FhXn+CtIbvu40R/i91c4LcDNByAAZGA6Q Message-ID: <189716C74BBB9C4095FE8CA503B1FC3A58F858F918@EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net> References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D768637C3B@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Sameer Gulrajani , Pradeep Jain X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:05:44 -0000 I support accepting this as a WG item. --Kurt -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of J= effrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:05 PM To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: ASIF, SAUD; Pradeep Jain; Sameer Gulrajani Subject: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt WG chairs, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt would like to request for a pol= l for accepting the work as a WG item. Thanks. Jeffrey From ss2539@att.com Mon Mar 19 10:23:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B6B21F87D4 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:23:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.743 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.743 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.637, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, TVD_SPACE_RATIO=2.219, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d6oaTrb7XwpR for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com [209.65.160.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388F221F86E3 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.11.0-8) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id d8b676f4.0.281388.00-489.753817.nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:23:26 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 4f676b8e32a65e76-a4bb0b7169e8eee5a26b0a4e6374444ca40e7a36 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2JHNuJQ005055 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:23:56 -0400 Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2JHNpcq005050 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:23:51 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9b.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.72]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:23:00 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.149]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.72]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:23:00 -0400 From: "SAAD, SAMIR S" To: "l3vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Topic: RE: draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac0F9O+AvsXmsz02SgG5vRfGHy9qWQ== Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:23:00 +0000 Message-ID: <438B11A5EC21D347A63ACB77E58C78BA102B9A@MISOUT7MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.16.32.55] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-RSA-Action: allow X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145] X-AnalysisOut: [v=1.0 c=1 a=ll1CIi-hfRQA:10 a=SdpxcTFwzn0A:10 a=ofMgfj31e3] X-AnalysisOut: [cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8] X-AnalysisOut: [UMqPvVAA==:17 a=uZw-aGmNMTJxi1K4cAYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10] X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:23:27 -0000 Yes/Support From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Sun Mar 25 01:46:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8210221F854F for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:46:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.14 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ch8b5BTh-Ptc for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792C221F84D9 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust814.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.14.227.47] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SBj5h-0007cc-Rq; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:46:22 +0100 Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:46:20 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <760DDC7B-8F2E-4458-8644-F25D29CDD790@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <39102B00-32CE-4AF9-9EF8-3022FAB3B550@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: L3VPN list X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:46:31 -0000 Colleagues, We have consensus to adopt draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN = WG draft. Can the authors please republish it as draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub-00 Thanks Ben On 4 Mar 2012, at 15:53, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Colleagues, >=20 > The authors of draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 have requested that = the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN as the = basis for a solution that enables full mesh connectivity with Hub & = Spoke VPNs. >=20 > This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt = draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02 as a L3VPN WG document. >=20 > Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this = message (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG = chairs privately. >=20 > If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful = if you could also state the reason for your objection. >=20 > Please send your responses by midnight 19th March PST. >=20 > Thanks > Ben From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Sun Mar 25 01:54:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF81821F85D0 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:54:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.863 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.277, BAYES_40=-0.185, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ERTzfbnzFyr2 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE6121F854D for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust814.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.14.227.47] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SBjDi-0008Ls-JF for l3vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:54:38 +0100 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: L3VPN WG status Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:54:38 +0100 Message-Id: <16561EC5-B78F-4EBE-A8F0-0F5B1DD409B4@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: L3VPN list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:54:40 -0000 Colleagues, As we will not have a face to face meeting in Paris please find below a = status update on the current status of work within L3VPN 1. DRAFTS PUBLISHED RFC 6513 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast)=20 RFC 6514 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp)=20 RFC 6515 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs)=20 RFC 6516 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins)=20 RFC 6517 (draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations)=20 2. DRAFTS IN THE RFC EDITOR QUEUE A. draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece This draft is currently in AUTH48 and should be published as an RFC = soon. B. draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards This draft has been approved by the IESG and is in the RFC Editor's = queue. 3. DRAFT IN OR PAST WG LAST CALL None. 4. ACTIVE WG DRAFTS A. draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community No change since IETF79. The authors believe the draft is complete but = would prefer to wait for two implementations to be produced before = proceeding to WG LC. B. draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir No progress since last IETF. This was accepted as a WG draft on 5th = August 2011. C draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub-00 (was = draft-rekhter-l3vpn-virtual-hub-02) This was accepted as a WG draft on 25th March 2012. 5. EXPIRED DRAFTS None. 6. OTHER WG WORK / ISSUES / ETC. draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-extranet & = draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-bgp-mvpn-extranet No change since IETF81. The authors are still working to merge these two = drafts into a single combined draft and following the merge we will poll = the WG to judge consensus to adopt the merged draft as a WG draft. From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Sun Mar 25 02:11:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4468321F8533 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:11:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, BAYES_20=-0.74, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r8ocuSVn0X33 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53F721F84FD for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust814.5-4.cable.virginmedia.com ([86.14.227.47] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SBjU7-0003Aa-PD for l3vpn@ietf.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:11:36 +0100 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Poll to adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:11:35 +0100 Message-Id: To: L3VPN list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:11:37 -0000 Colleagues, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 have requested that the document = be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN. This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt = draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document. The poll will last for 3 weeks as the draft was not named according to = the normal naming convention some of you may have missed it being = published and because this week is IETF week. =20 Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message = (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs = privately. If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if = you could also state the reason for your objection. I noticed that in response to the author's request that we conduct this = poll, some people expressed support for the draft being adopted. Those = views will be taken into account by the chairs and those people do not = need to re-express that same views. =20 Please send your responses by midnight 16th April PDT. Thanks Ben= From marco@juniper.net Sun Mar 25 14:26:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F7D21E8012 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eVhbg32IdmtS for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CEC421E800C for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT2+NkPAGPjEE8N6VYA/gAeab6jfsOqj8@postini.com; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:26:42 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:22:43 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:22:43 -0400 From: Marco Rodrigues To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:22:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Topic: Poll to adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Index: Ac0KzWmrOXfojD2pTdubE9wyQvQq8A== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: L3VPN list X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:26:45 -0000 Support. Marco. From: Ben Niven-Jenkins > Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:11:35 -0400 To: L3VPN list > Subject: Poll to adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document Colleagues, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 have requested that the document be= considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN. This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-zzhang= -mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document. The poll will last for 3 weeks as the draft was not named according to the = normal naming convention some of you may have missed it being published and= because this week is IETF week. Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (wi= th yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if yo= u could also state the reason for your objection. I noticed that in response to the author's request that we conduct this pol= l, some people expressed support for the draft being adopted. Those views w= ill be taken into account by the chairs and those people do not need to re-= express that same views. Please send your responses by midnight 16th April PDT. Thanks Ben From william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Sun Mar 25 16:19:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E80121E802D for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:19:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.54 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.456, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AYLfflBamw7d for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr15.networksolutionsemail.com (omr15.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A656B21E801C for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr3 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr15.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2PNJWqn021437 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:19:32 -0400 Authentication-Results: cm-omr3 smtp.user=william.zayas@fibercrossing.net; auth=pass (LOGIN) X-Authenticated-UID: william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Received: from [66.87.122.135] ([66.87.122.135:33494] helo=[21.237.40.135]) by cm-omr3 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id 4F/1E-29032-208AF6F4; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:19:32 -0400 To: ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk, "=?utf-8?B?TDNWUE4gbGlzdA==?=" Message-ID: <4F.1E.29032.208AF6F4@cm-omr3> From: "=?utf-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBaYXlhcw==?=" Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFBvbGwgdG8gYWRvcHQgZHJhZnQtenpoYW5nLW12cG4tbWliLTAwIGFzIGEg?= =?utf-8?B?TDNWUE4gV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQ=?= Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:19:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_17_1332717581601" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:19:34 -0000 ------=_Part_17_1332717581601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline CgpTdXBwb3J0LgoKCkNoZWVycywKCi0tLS0tIFJlcGx5IG1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0KRnJvbTogIkJl biBOaXZlbi1KZW5raW5zIiA8YmVuQG5pdmVuLWplbmtpbnMuY28udWs+ClRvOiAiTDNWUE4gbGlz dCIgPGwzdnBuQGlldGYub3JnPgpTdWJqZWN0OiBQb2xsIHRvIGFkb3B0IGRyYWZ0LXp6aGFuZy1t dnBuLW1pYi0wMCBhcyBhIEwzVlBOIFdHIGRvY3VtZW50CkRhdGU6IFN1biwgTWFyIDI1LCAyMDEy IDU6MTEgYW0KCgpDb2xsZWFndWVzLAoKVGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgb2YgZHJhZnQtenpoYW5nLW12cG4t bWliLTAwIGhhdmUgcmVxdWVzdGVkIHRoYXQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQgZm9y IGFkb3B0aW9uIGFzIGEgV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQgYnkgTDNWUE4uCgpUaGlzIGUtbWFpbCBzdGFydHMg YSBwb2xsIG9uIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhlIEwzVlBOIFdHIHNob3VsZCBhZG9wdCBkcmFmdC16emhhbmct bXZwbi1taWItMDAgYXMgYSBMM1ZQTiBXRyBkb2N1bWVudC4KClRoZSBwb2xsIHdpbGwgbGFzdCBm b3IgMyB3ZWVrcyBhcyB0aGUgZHJhZnQgd2FzIG5vdCBuYW1lZCBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gdGhlIG5v cm1hbCBuYW1pbmcgY29udmVudGlvbiBzb21lIG9mIHlvdSBtYXkgaGF2ZSBtaXNzZWQgaXQgYmVp bmcgcHVibGlzaGVkIGFuZCBiZWNhdXNlIHRoaXMgd2VlayBpcyBJRVRGIHdlZWsuCiAKUGxlYXNl IGluZGljYXRlIHlvdXIgc3VwcG9ydCBvciBvdGhlcndpc2UgYnkgcmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byB0aGlz IG1lc3NhZ2UgKHdpdGggeWVzL3N1cHBvcnQgb3Igbm8vZG8gbm90IHN1cHBvcnQpIG9yIGUtbWFp bGluZyB0aGUgV0cgY2hhaXJzIHByaXZhdGVseS4KCklmIHlvdSBkbyBub3Qgc3VwcG9ydCB0aGUg YWRvcHRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHVzZWZ1bCBpZiB5b3UgY291bGQg YWxzbyBzdGF0ZSB0aGUgcmVhc29uIGZvciB5b3VyIG9iamVjdGlvbi4KCkkgbm90aWNlZCB0aGF0 IGluIHJlc3BvbnNlIHRvIHRoZSBhdXRob3IncyByZXF1ZXN0IHRoYXQgd2UgY29uZHVjdCB0aGlz IHBvbGwsIHNvbWUgcGVvcGxlIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBzdXBwb3J0IGZvciB0aGUgZHJhZnQgYmVpbmcg YWRvcHRlZC4gVGhvc2Ugdmlld3Mgd2lsbCBiZSB0YWtlbiBpbnRvIGFjY291bnQgYnkgdGhlIGNo YWlycyBhbmQgdGhvc2UgcGVvcGxlIGRvIG5vdCBuZWVkIHRvIHJlLWV4cHJlc3MgdGhhdCBzYW1l IHZpZXdzLgogClBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIHlvdXIgcmVzcG9uc2VzIGJ5IG1pZG5pZ2h0IDE2dGggQXBy aWwgUERULgoKVGhhbmtzCkJlbgo= ------=_Part_17_1332717581601 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline PGJyPjxicj5TdXBwb3J0Ljxicj48YnI+PGJyPkNoZWVycyw8YnI+PGJyPi0tLS0tIFJlcGx5IG1l c3NhZ2UgLS0tLS08YnI+RnJvbTogJnF1b3Q7QmVuIE5pdmVuLUplbmtpbnMmcXVvdDsgJmx0O2Jl bkBuaXZlbi1qZW5raW5zLmNvLnVrJmd0Ozxicj5UbzogJnF1b3Q7TDNWUE4gbGlzdCZxdW90OyAm bHQ7bDN2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmcmZ3Q7PGJyPlN1YmplY3Q6IFBvbGwgdG8gYWRvcHQgZHJhZnQtenpo YW5nLW12cG4tbWliLTAwIGFzIGEgTDNWUE4gV0cgZG9jdW1lbnQ8YnI+RGF0ZTogU3VuLCBNYXIg MjUsIDIwMTIgNToxMSBhbTxicj48YnI+PGJyPkNvbGxlYWd1ZXMsPGJyPjxicj5UaGUgYXV0aG9y cyBvZiBkcmFmdC16emhhbmctbXZwbi1taWItMDAgaGF2ZSByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgZG9j dW1lbnQgYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpb24gYXMgYSBXRyBkb2N1bWVudCBieSBMM1ZQ Ti48YnI+PGJyPlRoaXMgZS1tYWlsIHN0YXJ0cyBhIHBvbGwgb24gd2hldGhlciB0aGUgTDNWUE4g V0cgc2hvdWxkIGFkb3B0IGRyYWZ0LXp6aGFuZy1tdnBuLW1pYi0wMCBhcyBhIEwzVlBOIFdHIGRv Y3VtZW50Ljxicj48YnI+VGhlIHBvbGwgd2lsbCBsYXN0IGZvciAzIHdlZWtzIGFzIHRoZSBkcmFm dCB3YXMgbm90IG5hbWVkIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byB0aGUgbm9ybWFsIG5hbWluZyBjb252ZW50aW9u IHNvbWUgb2YgeW91IG1heSBoYXZlIG1pc3NlZCBpdCBiZWluZyBwdWJsaXNoZWQgYW5kIGJlY2F1 c2UgdGhpcyB3ZWVrIGlzIElFVEYgd2Vlay48YnI+IDxicj5QbGVhc2UgaW5kaWNhdGUgeW91ciBz dXBwb3J0IG9yIG90aGVyd2lzZSBieSByZXNwb25kaW5nIHRvIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSAod2l0aCB5 ZXMvc3VwcG9ydCBvciBuby9kbyBub3Qgc3VwcG9ydCkgb3IgZS1tYWlsaW5nIHRoZSBXRyBjaGFp cnMgcHJpdmF0ZWx5Ljxicj48YnI+SWYgeW91IGRvIG5vdCBzdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBv ZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXQgd291bGQgYmUgdXNlZnVsIGlmIHlvdSBjb3VsZCBhbHNvIHN0YXRl IHRoZSByZWFzb24gZm9yIHlvdXIgb2JqZWN0aW9uLjxicj48YnI+SSBub3RpY2VkIHRoYXQgaW4g cmVzcG9uc2UgdG8gdGhlIGF1dGhvciYjMzk7cyByZXF1ZXN0IHRoYXQgd2UgY29uZHVjdCB0aGlz IHBvbGwsIHNvbWUgcGVvcGxlIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBzdXBwb3J0IGZvciB0aGUgZHJhZnQgYmVpbmcg YWRvcHRlZC4gVGhvc2Ugdmlld3Mgd2lsbCBiZSB0YWtlbiBpbnRvIGFjY291bnQgYnkgdGhlIGNo YWlycyBhbmQgdGhvc2UgcGVvcGxlIGRvIG5vdCBuZWVkIHRvIHJlLWV4cHJlc3MgdGhhdCBzYW1l IHZpZXdzLjxicj4gPGJyPlBsZWFzZSBzZW5kIHlvdXIgcmVzcG9uc2VzIGJ5IG1pZG5pZ2h0IDE2 dGggQXByaWwgUERULjxicj48YnI+VGhhbmtzPGJyPkJlbjxicj4= ------=_Part_17_1332717581601-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Mar 26 05:10:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CAD21F86D1; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:10:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5UPNnQe62T1N; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:10:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5C721F86BA; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:10:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.00 Message-ID: <20120326121026.14378.85626.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:10:26 -0700 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:10:28 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs Author(s) : Huajin Jeng James Uttaro Luay Jalil Bruno Decraene Yakov Rekhter Rahul Aggarwal Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub-00.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2012-03-26 With BGP/MPLS VPNs any-to-any connectivity among sites of a given Virtual Private Network would require each Provider Edge router that has one or more of these sites connected to it to hold all the routes of that Virtual Private Network. The approach described in this document allows to reduce the number of Provider Edge routers that have to maintain all these routes by requiring only a subset of these routers to maintain all these routes. Specification of Requirements A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub-00.txt From gandhi@juniper.net Mon Mar 26 06:56:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A897621F85ED for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:56:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JKSG6OLnBFHI for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ECAE21F85E3 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3B1oKDD0lnPfbxyEeYzxVk1xH+y3Cv3@postini.com; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:56:50 PDT Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:55:48 -0700 From: Arun Gandhi To: Ben Niven-Jenkins , L3VPN list Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:55:48 -0700 Subject: RE: Poll to adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Topic: Poll to adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document Thread-Index: Ac0KZ0xH1sXRf/BYTYytISqTYcKjVwA8NMGQ Message-ID: <0EC737CDF53698408D52FF82864745BB5309EBEB42@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:56:51 -0000 Support. Thanks, Arun -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= en Niven-Jenkins Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 5:12 AM To: L3VPN list Subject: Poll to adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document Colleagues, The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 have requested that the document be= considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN. This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-zzhang= -mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document. The poll will last for 3 weeks as the draft was not named according to the = normal naming convention some of you may have missed it being published and= because this week is IETF week. =20 Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (wi= th yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if yo= u could also state the reason for your objection. I noticed that in response to the author's request that we conduct this pol= l, some people expressed support for the draft being adopted. Those views w= ill be taken into account by the chairs and those people do not need to re-= express that same views. =20 Please send your responses by midnight 16th April PDT. Thanks Ben From lenny@juniper.net Mon Mar 26 21:55:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0F121F8599 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:55:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6oB1UVbLOR8Z for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og104.obsmtp.com (exprod7og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC8A21F84D5 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob104.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3FIV1V2a2tGjGYPC+1APwRTeaTYbfEt@postini.com; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:55:53 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 8.3.213.0; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:55:47 -0700 Received: from eng-mail01.juniper.net (eng-mail01.juniper.net [172.17.28.114]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id q2R4tk186698; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:55:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net) Received: by eng-mail01.juniper.net (Postfix, from userid 1709) id C6BF61145A; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eng-mail01.juniper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB34C11446; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:55:46 -0700 From: Leonard Giuliano To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20120326215438.Y26269@eng-mail01.juniper.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Cc: L3VPN list X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 04:55:54 -0000 Support On Sun, 25 Mar 2012, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: -) Colleagues, -) -) The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 have requested that the document be considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN. -) -) This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document. -) -) The poll will last for 3 weeks as the draft was not named according to the normal naming convention some of you may have missed it being published and because this week is IETF week. -) -) Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (with yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. -) -) If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if you could also state the reason for your objection. -) -) I noticed that in response to the author's request that we conduct this poll, some people expressed support for the draft being adopted. Those views will be taken into account by the chairs and those people do not need to re-express that same views. -) -) Please send your responses by midnight 16th April PDT. -) -) Thanks -) Ben From rjs@rob.sh Wed Mar 28 23:00:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21C621F86FC for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:00:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.603 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6iHUK3HTQ8x3 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cappuccino.rob.sh (cappuccino.rob.sh [IPv6:2001:b98:201:101::10:cafe]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FADF21F86F6 for ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [82.245.155.2] (helo=[172.17.2.126]) by cappuccino.rob.sh with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SD8Oj-0000iB-JA; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:59:49 +0100 References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A405) From: Rob Shakir Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:00:24 +0200 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Cc: L3VPN list X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:00:27 -0000 Support. Cheers, r.=20 On 25 Mar 2012, at 11:11, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:= > Colleagues, >=20 > The authors of draft-zzhang-mvpn-mib-00 have requested that the document b= e considered for adoption as a WG document by L3VPN. >=20 > This e-mail starts a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt draft-zzhan= g-mvpn-mib-00 as a L3VPN WG document. >=20 > The poll will last for 3 weeks as the draft was not named according to the= normal naming convention some of you may have missed it being published and= because this week is IETF week. >=20 > Please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this message (w= ith yes/support or no/do not support) or e-mailing the WG chairs privately. >=20 > If you do not support the adoption of the document it would be useful if y= ou could also state the reason for your objection. >=20 > I noticed that in response to the author's request that we conduct this po= ll, some people expressed support for the draft being adopted. Those views w= ill be taken into account by the chairs and those people do not need to re-e= xpress that same views. >=20 > Please send your responses by midnight 16th April PDT. >=20 > Thanks > Ben