Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 11:24:47 +0200

Wen,

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure why sending or processing a route
target would be mandatory in the case of MS-PW routing. This is somewhat
different from the auto-discovery case described in RFC6074. In MS-PW
routing, you know a-priori the PEs that can participate in MS-PW routing
and can terminate MS-PWs, the set of PSN tunnel between T-Pes/S-Pes, and
the T-LDP next-hop.

Regards

Matthew   

On 05/09/2012 20:40, "Wen Lin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>When BGP is used for advertising PW address information, I think we shall
>specify in the section 6.1.3 that it MUST have one or more route targets
>associated with it since the NRLI is for L2VPN with a an AFI equals to
>L2VPN(25).
>
>Thanks,
>Wen
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Wen Lin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 03:07:46 +0000

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for the reply.  

On the T-PE, the MP-BGP advertises this MS-PW NLRI for the VPWS instance and the layer 2 VPN. A MS-PW may go across different ASes.  The route target serves as a VPN identifier and helps to control the route distribution.   

Also we shall not exclude using the same MS-PW NRLI for the auto-discovery of S-PE or T-PE by using the type 2 AII. 
We shall also not exclude using the same NLRI for the VPLS. The route target will help us identify the VPLS domain that the VSI belongs to and helps us build different topologies for the PW. 

Thanks,
Wen

-----Original Message-----
From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 5:25 AM
To: Wen Lin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts

Wen,

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure why sending or processing a route target would be mandatory in the case of MS-PW routing. This is somewhat different from the auto-discovery case described in RFC6074. In MS-PW routing, you know a-priori the PEs that can participate in MS-PW routing and can terminate MS-PWs, the set of PSN tunnel between T-Pes/S-Pes, and the T-LDP next-hop.

Regards

Matthew   

On 05/09/2012 20:40, "Wen Lin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>When BGP is used for advertising PW address information, I think we 
>shall specify in the section 6.1.3 that it MUST have one or more route 
>targets associated with it since the NRLI is for L2VPN with a an AFI 
>equals to L2VPN(25).
>
>Thanks,
>Wen
>
>
>

---

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:42:38 +0200

Hi Wen,

I think the scenario that you are describing is when you are using AII
type 2 for auto-discovery. This draft does not exclude doing this, but
that's a different scenario. Instead, it describes a scenario where we are
using an aggregated AII type 2 to distribute routes among a known set of
S-Pes and T-Pes.

If you also want to use AII type 2 in auto-discovery scenarios, when I
think this needs to be documented in a separate draft. However, I can add
a sentence to the dynamic MS-PW draft to state that a RT MAY be included
along with the NLRI.

Matthew 

On 04/10/2012 04:07, "Wen Lin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi Matthew,
>
>Thank you for the reply.
>
>On the T-PE, the MP-BGP advertises this MS-PW NLRI for the VPWS instance
>and the layer 2 VPN. A MS-PW may go across different ASes.  The route
>target serves as a VPN identifier and helps to control the route
>distribution.   
>
>Also we shall not exclude using the same MS-PW NRLI for the
>auto-discovery of S-PE or T-PE by using the type 2 AII.
>We shall also not exclude using the same NLRI for the VPLS. The route
>target will help us identify the VPLS domain that the VSI belongs to and
>helps us build different topologies for the PW.
>
>
>Thanks,
>Wen
>
>

---

From: Wen Lin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:51:31 +0000

Hi Matthew,

Again, thank you for the reply.

As I have stated before that the reason we shall have a route target associated with the MS-PW NLRI is that it is a VPN route - i.e. the MS-PW NRLI is advertised by the T-PEs for the Layer 2 VPN.  

The latest version of this dynamic Multi-Segment PW draft took out the section addressed the "S-PE addressing" requirement and also the reference to the explicit route TLV(explicit path). This makes the proposal a more generic approach for achieving dynamic setup of MS-PW using type 2 AII. I still think a route target should be associated with the MS-PW NLRI. Or is there any bad effect for associating route target in this case?

Thanks,
Wen 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Wen Lin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts

Hi Wen,

I think the scenario that you are describing is when you are using AII type 2 for auto-discovery. This draft does not exclude doing this, but that's a different scenario. Instead, it describes a scenario where we are using an aggregated AII type 2 to distribute routes among a known set of S-Pes and T-Pes.

If you also want to use AII type 2 in auto-discovery scenarios, when I think this needs to be documented in a separate draft. However, I can add a sentence to the dynamic MS-PW draft to state that a RT MAY be included along with the NLRI.

Matthew 

On 04/10/2012 04:07, "Wen Lin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi Matthew,
>
>Thank you for the reply.
>
>On the T-PE, the MP-BGP advertises this MS-PW NLRI for the VPWS 
>instance and the layer 2 VPN. A MS-PW may go across different ASes.  
>The route target serves as a VPN identifier and helps to control the route
>distribution.   
>
>target will help us identify the VPLS domain that the VSI belongs to 
>and helps us build different topologies for the PW.
>
>
>Thanks,
>Wen
>
>
>From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) 
>[mailto:[email-masked]]
>Thanks for your comment. I am not sure why sending or processing a 
>route target would be mandatory in the case of MS-PW routing. This is 
>somewhat different from the auto-discovery case described in RFC6074. 
>In MS-PW routing, you know a-priori the PEs that can participate in 
>MS-PW routing and can terminate MS-PWs, the set of PSN tunnel between 
>T-Pes/S-Pes, and the T-LDP next-hop.
>
>Regards
>
>Matthew   
>

---

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:08:54 +0200

Hi Wen,

I don't think that the requirement for S-PE addressing should have been
removed from this version of the draft. That was a mistake; it is used to
populate the SP-PE TLV and is needed irrespective of whether explicit
routing is used. I think it should be put back into the next version of
the draft.

There is no bad effect from an RT, but it is not needed in pre-defined
topologies of S-Pes and T-Pes. If you are looking for a more general
solution that adds the RT then the usage of FEC129 AII Type 2 for L2VPN
discovery and signalling needs to be fully described, and this is better
done in a separate draft.

Matthew

On 10/10/2012 21:51, "Wen Lin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>As I have stated before that the reason we shall have a route target
>associated with the MS-PW NLRI is that it is a VPN route - i.e. the MS-PW
>NRLI is advertised by the T-PEs for the Layer 2 VPN.
>
>The latest version of this dynamic Multi-Segment PW draft took out the
>section addressed the "S-PE addressing" requirement and also the
>reference to the explicit route TLV(explicit path). This makes the
>proposal a more generic approach for achieving dynamic setup of MS-PW
>using type 2 AII. I still think a route target should be associated with
>the MS-PW NLRI. Or is there any bad effect for associating route target
>in this case?
>
>Thanks,
>Wen 
>
>
>
>that's a different scenario. Instead, it describes a scenario where we
>are using an aggregated AII type 2 to distribute routes among a known set
>of S-Pes and T-Pes.
>