Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-05.txt

From: "Shah, Himanshu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:25:22 -0500

Some response in line.. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:24 AM
To: Shah, Himanshu
Cc: Shane Amante; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-05.txt

Himanshu

I think that it would also be a good idea if you asked for a review by
the RTGWG or the routing area directorate.

HCS> I am guessing you are suggesting this as for your concern of lack
of support
HCS> for Ipv6 at the get-go? The WG is committed to support v6 as follow
on and
HCS> did not feel that draft be held off for that. It seems that is an
acceptable
HCS> conclusion. 

I am concerned about breaking shared fate assumptions particularly with
regard to the sending of  multicast packets down one PW, and various
types of unicast packets down other PWs. Now we can unify the the
unicast packets and emulated muticast packets over a single PW using a
CW and maybe that is what we have to do. However I am having concerns as
to the consequence of moving on to the use of a MP PW - which would
increase bandwidth efficiency but might have serious consequences for
the client layer routing algorithm.

HCS> "multicast" PW is the anchor and works in tandom with associated
"unicast" PW for
HCS> a given IPLS instance with a PE peer. They are tightly coupled wrt
their operational
HCS> status. The concept is similar (but not same) to how PW maintains
bidirectionality 
HCS> over two unidirectional transport LSPs.
HCS> Not sure about your concern with MP PW. Are you referring to the
use of mp2p PW,
HCS> the way it is used in IPLS or p2mp LSP that is being designed in
MPLS WG and how
HCS> we make use of that for "multicast" PW?

Regards,
himanshu

- Stewart