Subject: Re: Requirements +

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:30:23 -0600

Cagatay,

I believe that we should have a short draft to spell out the 
requirements, but we should be careful to avoid any 
autoprovisioning/autodiscovery requirements for PWE3.
A separate draft addressing autodiscovery requirements, for PWs needs to 
be submitted in L2VPN.
We also need a draft in L2VPN to expand the existing solution of BGP 
autodiscovery, and Radius autodiscovery to include intraAS/Interprovider 
requirements.

The requirement document I was talking about is :
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-08.txt

In particular the section :

10 Inter-domain Issues
PWE is a matter between the PW end-points and is transparent to the
   network devices between the PW end-points.  Therefore, inter-domain
   PWE is fundamentally similar to intra-domain PWE.  As long as PW
   end-points use the same PWE approach, they can communicate
   effectively, regardless of whether they are in the same domain.
   Security may become more important in the inter-domain case and some
   security measure such as end-point authentication MAY be applied.
   QoS may become more difficult to deliver too, as one service provider
   has no control over another service provider's provisioning and
   traffic management policy. To solve the inter-domain QoS problem,
   service providers have to cooperate. Once they agree at a contractual
   level to provider high quality of service to certain traffic (e.g.
   PWE traffic), the mechanisms defined in other working groups, e.g.
   Diffserv WG, can be used.

   Inter-domain PSN tunnels are generally more difficult to set up, tear
   down and maintain than intra-domain ones. But that is an issue for
   PSN tunneling protocols such as MPLS and L2TPv3 and is outside the
   scope of PWE3.

Obviously this is not adequate. I think we need to be careful to focus a 
requirement document in on this particular topic only.

We can start working on the PWE3 requirement document if you want.

Luca

cagatay koc wrote:

>WG,
>In the PWE3 session of the IETF meeting on last monday, after I presented Du
>Ke's draft we had a discussion with Peter Busschbach and Mark Townsley and
>it became clear that the 
>'switching/stiching' solutions (functionality/location), are a bit premature
>given the fact that a detailed requirement document is missing which should
>also iron out terminology and other critical issues. It would make sense to
>quickly put down a draft on intra-AS, inter-AS requirements relevant to PW
>switching points, taking into account operator needs as well 
>as requirements already implied in the existing documents. These points are
>made several times here but it would make sense to form a group of
>volunteers to draft a common document. I also  talked with Luka Martini and
>he thinks there might be a requirement document (which I could not find) and
>Nabil Bitar also agrees with this 
>'soft concensus', obviously Neil from his mails agrees with this assessment.
>Latest exchange between Mustafa and Peter also can be resolved with a
>requirement document.
>I am willing to work on this as long as we have a few other volunteers (at
>least 1 from operator side).
>Best regards,
>Cagatay Buyukkoc 
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>  
>

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:37:01 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Cagatay,

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, cagatay koc wrote:

> also iron out terminology and other critical issues.

Agreed.

> It would make sense to
> as requirements already implied in the existing documents.

This requirements effort should be viewed as the next set of requirements
to evolve MPLS PWs, being driven by the natural curve of technology
evolution. It should not be viewed as a narrow effort focussing on PW
stitching. More specifically the following issues should also be part of
this effort:
   - Multi-hop PW traffic engineering
   - PW QoS
   - PW Redundancy

draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-00.txt has a discussion on some of this.

Auto-discovery/routing issues should also be part of this (beaten to death
in another thread). If it so happens that some of these requirements need
to be handed off to another group (l2vpn for example) that is fine. But
let us start with the big picture in mind.

> least 1 from operator side).

I would be open to participating.

Thanks,
rahul