Subject: Re: Draft of new L2VPN WG Charter

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:42:05 -0700

Hi L2VPN WG Chairs,

Here are a few comments on the proposed charter:

- "It will also address requirements driven by cloud computing services 
and data centers as they apply to Layer-2 VPN services."

To me the intent of this text is that the L2VPN WG will work on addressing 
data center requirements if they require layer 2 VPN services. The text 
leaves room for such requirements to be generated by another WG or by 
L2VPN WG itself. I think this text is a good addition to the charter.

- The definition of Ethernet VPN:

"5. Ethernet VPN (E-VPN) - A Layer-2 technology that emulates an
Ethernet (V)LAN across an MPLS PSN. E-VPN supports load-sharing across
multiple connections from a Layer-2 site to an L2VPN service, and also
supports control plane distribution of MAC addresses and IP to MAC 
address bindings in the VPN."

I think this text is accurate and captures the definition of E-VPN.

In short the proposed charter looks quite reasonable to me.

rahul

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Giles Heron wrote:

> We plan to re-charter the L2VPN WG - primarily to bring E-VPN and E-Tree
> in-scope.
>
> Please find attached a draft charter for discussion both on this list and at
> IETF 80 in Prague.
>
> Nabil and Giles
>
>
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:32:48 -0400

I think your first proposed item is problematic in at least two regards.

1) We do not generally charter work until we know that it needs to be 
done.  The related activities are still investigating what, if anything, 
needs to be done.

2) We do not generally charter undefined work.  Meeting undefined 
requirements from undefined places is unusual and difficult.  That is a 
recipe for an unbounded working group, which generally does not come out 
well for anyone.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/5/2011 10:42 PM, Rahul Aggarwal wrote:
> To me the intent of this text is that the L2VPN WG will work on
> addressing data center requirements if they require layer 2 VPN
> services. The text leaves room for such requirements to be generated by
> another WG or by L2VPN WG itself. I think this text is a good addition
> to the charter.
>

---

From: "Shah, Himanshu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 07:29:00 -0400

Agreed,  with same concerns.
 
Additionally for the second clause (definition part), 
allowing active/active construct for VPLS and control plane distribution of MAC addresses
(a concept that is not new)  - does not seem to justify new clause.
 
As suggested earlier, perhaps extending the VPLS charter suffice these extensions..
 
/himanshu

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Wed 4/6/2011 12:32 AM
To: Rahul Aggarwal
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Draft of new L2VPN WG Charter

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Aldrin Isaac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:39:12 -0400

Hi Joel,

Is draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req what you are looking for?

Regarding support of L2VPN services within and between data centers by
the charter, note that many providers operate both WAN and data center
networks.   They increasingly have a need to blend the two into a
larger coherent system edge-to-edge.

Best.  -- aldrin

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 10:01:44 -0400

That is a very interesting draft.
If the references to virtualization and MAC scaling were split off (as 
those are the purview of the ARMD working group and almost incidental to 
the rest of the draft), the draft would be a very good start on a 
document for a working group milestone of evaluating the requirements.

If the scope of the requirements space were spelled out in the charter, 
then I would be quite happy with such a milestone.  I would however, 
defer any milestone for solving the problem, as WGs that put both in 
have a tendency to get the cart before the horse (I have just had a bit 
of that with the KARP WG, where I and my co-chair and ADs made exactly 
that error.)

Yours,
Joel

On 4/6/2011 8:39 AM, Aldrin Isaac wrote:
> On 4/6/11, Joel M. Halpern<[email-masked]>  wrote:

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:21:14 +0200

I support this charter update.

-Thomas