Subject: draft-ietf-ppvpn-generic-reqts-00

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:38:58 -0600

All,
Since there has been no response to my email on Nov 26, and since we 
have an aggressive time line for completion of this draft, I would like 
to solicit comments once again.  If nothing comes up, I would go ahead 
and update the draft after minor editorial changes this Friday 
(December 20), and it would then be ready for last call.  So I request 
you to make any comments ASAP.

To make it easier, here are some areas where we would like 
suggestions/agreement/disagreement:

 Section 5.1.1: Service Provider Capacity Sizing Projections

1. "The estimate is that a large service provider will require support 
for on the order of 10,000 VPNs within four years." 

2. "The number of site interfaces should range from a few  site 
interfaces to over 50,000  site interfaces per VPN."

3. "The number of routes per VPN may range  from just a few to  the 
number of routes exchanged between ISPs (on
   the order of  100,000)."

Section 5.1.2

4. Section 5.1.2.1 (Users per VPN): "L3 VPNs must scale from 2 users 
per VPN to O(10^5) users per VPN. L2 VPNs must scale from 2 users to a 
few hundred."

5. Section 5.1.2.2 (Users per site): "L3 VPNs must scale from 1 user 
per site to thousands of users per site. L2 VPNs must scale from 1 user 
to a few hundred per site."

6. Note that the above makes the assumption that the number of sites in 
an L2VPN is of the same order as teh number of users.  this is also 
mentioned in Section 5.1.2.3. Does this make sense?

7. Section 5.1.2.4 (Number of PEs and CEs): There are no numbers given. 
Do you agree with the text? Any suggestions for numbers?

8. Section 5.1.2.5 (Number of sites per PE): "The scaling point here is 
that the PE must be able to support a few or even a single site on the 
low end and O(10^4) sites on the high end."  Is this a reasonable 
criterion by which PPVPN solutions are evaluated?

9. Section 5.1.2.6 (Number of VPNs in the network): "As mentioned in 
Section 5.1.1, the number of VPNs in the network should be O(10^4)."

10. Section 5.1.2.7 (Number of VPNs per PE): "It is estimated that the 
number of VPNs needs to be at least an
   order of magnitude higher than the number of sites per PE."

11. Section 5.1.2.8 (Number of VPNs per site): "It is  possible that 
one customer will run up to O(100) VPNs." Is this even a reasonable 
metric?

12. Section 5.1.2.9 (Number of addresses per VPN): No numbers 
mentioned. Is the text ok? Any suggestions for numbers?

13. Section 5.1.2.10 (Number of addresses per PE): "This is a function 
of the number of VPNs per site and the number of
   addresses per site and the number of sites per PE."

14. Any other metrics that you would like to see?

15. Other comments on the rest of the document are welcome.

Thanks,
Ananth

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ananth.nagarajan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:23 PM
> To: ppvpn
> Cc: ananth.nagarajan
> Subject: Soliciting comments/input on
> draft-ietf-ppvpn-generic-reqts-00.txt
> 
> 
> All,
> As discussed during the PPVPN meeting in Atlanta last week, I have 
> re-submitted draft-nagarajan-ppvpn-generic-reqts-01.txt as a WG 
> document (draft-ietf-ppvpn-generic-reqts-00.txt).  This version has a 
> few minor changes from draft-nagarajan-...-01.
> 
> These include:
> - The taxonomy picture and the wording in that section have 
> been fixed 
> so that the context is generic (without specifying specific 
> solutions).
> - Typos have been fixed
> - Wording changes have  been made in accordance with feedback 
> received 
> prior to the meeting.
> 
> As mentioned during the PPVPN meeting, the authors would like to 
> finalize this document by the end of the year and therefore, 
> we request 
> input on the draft.  Specifically, input is sought on the contents of 
> the scalability section (section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2).  It should 
> be noted 
> that the scalability parameters and numbers used in this draft are 
> merely to provoke discussion, and are based on the operational 
> experiences of a few representatives of the co-authors list.  These 
> numbers are not carved in stone by any means, and I therefore request 
> some discussion on this topic on the list.
> 
> I would also like to request comments on Section 4.2 (Stability), in 
> terms of a good working description of stability and the generic 
> requirements associated with it.
> 
> The authors hope to consolidate the comments received and 
> have another 
> revision of this draft in the second week of December (targetting 
> December 10), which we hope would be close to final.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ananth
> 
> 
> 
>