Subject: [mpls] draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:06:16 -0400

At IETF 76, I believe Ice presented the draft "Using mLDP through a Backbone
where there is no Route to the Root" to the MPLS WG.  The latest version of
this draft is draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec-01.txt.

The draft specifies two new mLDP "recursive" FEC elements, one for use in a
VPN context and one for use in a non-VPN context.  During a discussion on
the mailing list, it was agreed that before the MPLS WG is asked to adopt
the draft as a WG draft, the draft should be presented to the L3VPN WG, to
see if that WG had any objections to the VPN part of the draft.

At IETF 77, I presented this draft to the L3VPN WG.  The VPN recursive FEC
element was presented, along with two use cases for it: (a) support of
unsegmented inter-AS P-tunnels, and (b) limited applicability carrier's
carrier support.

At the L3VPN WG, there was no objection to the VPN recursive FEC element
itself or to use case (a).  Rahul objected to use case (b), recommending
that this use case be omitted.  I argued that if the mechanism is accepted,
there isn't much point to suppressing discussion of a possible use, and that
the applicability limitations of use case (b) were clearly acknowledged in
the document.  When the room was asked whether there were any objections to
the adoption of this document by the MPLS WG, only one hand was raised.

Having now done the "due diligence" of consulting the L3VPN WG, I think we
can ask the MPLS WG to accept this draft as a WG draft.