Subject: [PWE3] Questions about draft-delord-pwe3-cw-bit-etree

From: Simon Delord <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:56:31 +1100

Bonjour everyone,

Just going through the minutes of the PWE3 meeting and I'm trying to answer
some of the questions raised during Frederic's presentation of
draft-delord-pwe3-cw-bit-etree.

(1) Need a solution to address more than just VPLS, that uses the Ethernet
header. A number of ways to handle this. Try in IEEE. If no interest do here
in IETF.
[SD]: we believe it's good to explore the need and feasibility for a
solution using PBB. Our proposal is for MPLS/VPLS networks, we believe there
is such a need and it is a very simple and effective approach for existing
MPLS/VPLS network to support MEF E-Tree (rooted-multipoint) in addition to
E-LAN (multipoint-to-multipoint).
I believe there was an IEEE meeting last week, any feedback on this topic? .

(2) If large number of leafs then will have a large amount of flooded
multicast traffic because filtered after multicast.

[SD] we agree. The existing VPLS standards (RFC4761 & RFC4762) have a
similar problem. The aim of the solution we are proposing in I-D
draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree
is a simple and effective way of supporting MEF E-Tree services. However, if
the aim is optimising these types of E-Tree services for
"multicast/broadcast" traffic, then the work in progress VPLS-Multicast or
VPMS could be considered. (some discussion on this is in I-D
draft-key-l2vpn-etree-frwk).

Comments and follow-up questions to the mailing list or authors are very
much welcome.

Regards,

Simon