From RafiR@orckit.com Sun Oct 2 00:53:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE3B21F8D90 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 00:53:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uCEMPiKyjdkw for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 00:53:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tlvmail1.orckit.com (tlvmail1.orckit.com [213.31.203.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C6C21F8D8E for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 00:52:59 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC80D9.1DCE8602" Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 09:58:47 +0200 Message-ID: <45A67426326F814AAC27DBEC3FC7EEC20407914C@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-Index: Acx/DiFgORQ+W2JyRBSvt5iGREsmEwByuCew References: From: "Rafi Ram" To: X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:53:01 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC80D9.1DCE8602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, support.=20 Rafi > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:32:34 +0100 > From: Giles Heron > To: > Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" >=20 > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by March > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. >=20 > Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Nabil & Giles ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC80D9.1DCE8602 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, support.

Rafi
> = ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, = 29 Sep 2011 20:32:34 +0100
> From: Giles Heron = <giles.heron@gmail.com>
> To: = <l2vpn@ietf.org>
> Subject: WG adoption of = draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt?
> Message-ID: = <CAAA8662.EEB4%giles.heron@gmail.com>
> = Content-Type: text/plain;   = charset=3D"US-ASCII"
>
> This = is a request to gauge consensus as to whether:
> =
> = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04
>
> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG = draft.
>
> Now that we've adopted the new = charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a
> milestone = item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by = March
> 2012.  If you think this draft is a good = starting point for those
> requirements then please reply = indicating your support for the draft.  If
> not = then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft = shouldn't
> be adopted - which we can then = debate.
>
> Please respond by Thursday = 13th of October.
>
> = Thanks!
>
> Nabil & = Giles

------_=_NextPart_001_01CC80D9.1DCE8602-- From DanielC@orckit.com Sun Oct 2 00:58:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560DA21F8E23 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 00:58:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.372 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.227, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PVzlmdm2qAcS for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 00:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tlvmail1.orckit.com (tlvmail1.orckit.com [213.31.203.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6027021F8E24 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 00:58:34 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:01:33 +0200 Message-ID: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA08130717E84E@tlvmail1> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-Index: Acx+3olnBdW6oUmrHUWspYzlTDElSgB+vP9Q References: From: "Daniel Cohn" To: "Giles Heron" , X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 07:58:35 -0000 Support -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:33 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by March 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Sun Oct 2 10:01:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B622721F85B1 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:01:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SDvCutcfL-RW for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB9621F85A8 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 10:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p92H4DOe009350 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 2 Oct 2011 12:04:13 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.14]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Sun, 2 Oct 2011 13:04:12 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 13:04:10 -0400 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-Index: AcyBJU6+iIatnf3JQMeeSNm0Uq8bQA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA08130717E84E@tlvmail1> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 17:01:16 -0000 Yes/support > >-----Original Message----- >From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >Of Giles Heron >Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:33 PM >To: l2vpn@ietf.org >Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? > >This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 > >should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > >Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a >milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by >March >2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those >requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. >If >not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft >shouldn't >be adopted - which we can then debate. > >Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. > >Thanks! > >Nabil & Giles > > From marc.lasserre@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Oct 3 01:05:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6710E21F8AAC for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 01:05:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xe461CFAzjHM for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 01:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2FE21F8997 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 01:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p93889ow018226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:08:18 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.45]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:08:15 +0200 From: "LASSERRE, MARC (MARC)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:08:16 +0200 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-Index: Acx+3olnBdW6oUmrHUWspYzlTDElSgCxQi6g Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 08:05:22 -0000 Support. Marc -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:33 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by March 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn'= t be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From trafique@above.net Mon Oct 3 08:49:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C70921F8BBA for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:49:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q8RmXOB52AMb for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DFWCAS.Above.Net (DFWCAS.above.net [64.125.228.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B374B21F8B3D for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DFWXMB02.na.above.net ([fe80::a454:c5fa:17df:4e68]) by DFWXHC01.na.above.net ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 10:53:36 -0500 From: "Rafique, Tariq" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-Index: Acx+3olnBdW6oUmrHUWspYzlTDElSgDBcxbg Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:52:25 +0000 Message-ID: <012FD0169CC9E049A20B6E6AF1E1FE580C82EC66@DFWXMB02.na.above.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.35.201] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:49:49 -0000 Support. Tariq -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 3:33 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by March 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn'= t be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From narten@us.ibm.com Mon Oct 3 13:23:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965D421F8DFB for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:23:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.488 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F5gVuVv0f+cP for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com (e6.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4D521F8DD1 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (d01relay07.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.147]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p93K2OpH025909 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:02:24 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p93KQZAH2514992 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:26:35 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p93KQYNM017096 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:26:34 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-206-44.mts.ibm.com [9.65.206.44]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p93KQYbg016981 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:26:34 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p93KQWVB007937 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:26:33 -0400 Message-Id: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: FWD: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:26:32 -0400 From: Thomas Narten X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:23:33 -0000 FYI. It has been suggested that this work area overlaps with L2VPN's charter. That was not my starting point, but I also haven't followed this WG in recent years. In any case, I'd welcome feedback and a sense for whether this is in-scope for this WG. Thomas ------- Forwarded Message From: Thomas Narten To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: nvo3@ietf.org Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:03:34 -0400 Subject: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization A new mailing list has been set up to explore possible IETF work in the area of providing L2 network virtualization service over an L3 (IP) overlay network. As background, there are a number of drafts that relate to this area, including: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility-00 I've put together a first-cut at a problem statement that focuses on the issues and potential work areas, without getting into solution specifics. See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-00.txt There have also been some related vendor announcements and presentations as well (these are ones I happen to know of, there are surely others). For example: http://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/introducing-vxlan/ http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/white_paper_c11-685115.html http://blogs.vmware.com/console/2011/08/towards-virtualized-networking-for-the-cloud.html http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/SAC-442T The list is called nvo3, for "Network Virtualization Over L3", aka N-Vee-Oh-3 (we'll see how well that acronym sticks...). I've put in a formal request to hold a BOF in Taipai, so we can explore whether it makes sense to form a WG in this area. Subscription information for the mailing list can be found at List address: nvo3@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/maillist.html To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 I look forward to your participation! Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ------- End of Forwarded Message From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Oct 3 14:48:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CAD121F8EDC for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uKgonSHvyjmf for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFEB21F8ED9 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p93Lp6L0007752 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:51:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.112]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p93Lp65E007566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:51:06 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.112]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:51:06 -0500 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: Thomas Narten , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:51:05 -0500 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AcyCCsKU7NyG3fu+S++COPkSXcEOngAB9Qpg Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:48:05 -0000 Thomas, The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work related to = DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed requirements and solut= ion initiatives that prompted the change - see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (re= quirements, solutions) and VM mobility.=20 The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP tunnel= s. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group has accumulated= a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all the VPN/multi-tenancy c= omponents, including L2/IP solution. Any DC related solutions need to also = interoperate with existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Ser= vices to VPN customers.=20 So I think these initiatives are in L2VPN scope and should be discussed her= e to better understand what are the deltas from existing VPN technologies.= =20 Florin -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of T= homas Narten Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 1:27 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: FWD: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtu= alization FYI. It has been suggested that this work area overlaps with L2VPN's charter. That was not my starting point, but I also haven't followed this WG in recent years. In any case, I'd welcome feedback and a sense for whether this is in-scope for this WG. Thomas ------- Forwarded Message From: Thomas Narten To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: nvo3@ietf.org Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:03:34 -0400 Subject: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualiza= tion A new mailing list has been set up to explore possible IETF work in the area of providing L2 network virtualization service over an L3 (IP) overlay network. As background, there are a number of drafts that relate to this area, including: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility-00 I've put together a first-cut at a problem statement that focuses on the issues and potential work areas, without getting into solution specifics. See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-= 00.txt =20 There have also been some related vendor announcements and presentations as well (these are ones I happen to know of, there are surely others). For example: http://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/introducing-vxlan/ http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/whit= e_paper_c11-685115.html http://blogs.vmware.com/console/2011/08/towards-virtualized-networking= -for-the-cloud.html =20 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/SAC-442T The list is called nvo3, for "Network Virtualization Over L3", aka N-Vee-Oh-3 (we'll see how well that acronym sticks...). I've put in a formal request to hold a BOF in Taipai, so we can explore whether it makes sense to form a WG in this area. Subscription information for the mailing list can be found at List address: nvo3@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/maillist.ht= ml To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 I look forward to your participation! Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ------- End of Forwarded Message From bschlies@cisco.com Mon Oct 3 15:40:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A96521F8EA0 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:40:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x3cBMpuKNm26 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAF621F8E9F for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:40:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bschlies@cisco.com; l=5101; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317681826; x=1318891426; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=keFuPbOUeBsFnCaCEbUEjS3Zowz8/4NQDzmuNX8cvh4=; b=RMVgt2KKj9QVBMypBTR608GX+1jSRToa5ZfkAiW52DCXXeA+rl0V9vXY TN+xgIklhHSpICcYhbqCZCT6eOc8kI1jGNMDuKHDIl8aO+9VKkI6UH2Ki GeKhlmGpRC0FBNQ1tNG7aaJ4bzwXDfgy7YzcKGMX5tVuE56aZ1rIriy3G Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApgAAPk5ik6rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABCmHCNYIExgQWBUwEBAQMBAQEBDwEKHS0HEAcECxEDAQEBDQEaBycfCQgGARIJEgeHWQaaaQGdeoZAYQSHd4tphSWMNw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,481,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="5714044" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Oct 2011 22:43:45 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.133] (sjc-vpn6-1838.cisco.com [10.21.127.46]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p93Mhj2v007175; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:43:45 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization From: Benson Schliesser In-Reply-To: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:43:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" , Thomas Narten , l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:40:50 -0000 I don't disagree with Florin's comments, but I'm not certain the NVO3 = initiative is best-served within L2VPN's scope. The L2VPN charter says = that "Layer-2 VPNs comprise" an enumerated list of topics. While there = may be overlap, it seems that NVO3 would deal with a somewhat new topic. = Whether this is best done through a re-charter of L2VPN or = establishment of a new WG, is not clear to me - but for the sake of = argument here are a couple considerations: For starters, the current L2VPN charter focuses on = "provider-provisioned" which may not apply to NVO3. This is admittedly = a vague line of division, but it may be useful in thinking about the = distinction between these areas of work. More specifically, while NVO3 solutions might emulate native L2 service, = they may in fact be significantly different in capability and operation. = I'd suggest that, for example, the mechanisms by which address = resolution happen might be very different - both within an overlay, as = well as between the overlay and underlying PSN. This might constrain the = types of traffic that can be carried by the overlay. Or maybe not. This = is something that NVO3 would need to investigate. Cheers, -Benson On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) wrote: > Thomas, >=20 > The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work = related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed = requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - see = drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM mobility.=20 >=20 > The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP = tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group has = accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all the = VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC related = solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as Cloud Provider = want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers.=20 >=20 > So I think these initiatives are in L2VPN scope and should be = discussed here to better understand what are the deltas from existing = VPN technologies.=20 >=20 > Florin >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Thomas Narten > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 1:27 PM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: FWD: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 = Virtualization >=20 > FYI. It has been suggested that this work area overlaps with L2VPN's > charter. That was not my starting point, but I also haven't followed > this WG in recent years. >=20 > In any case, I'd welcome feedback and a sense for whether this is > in-scope for this WG. >=20 > Thomas >=20 > ------- Forwarded Message >=20 > From: Thomas Narten > To: ietf@ietf.org > Cc: nvo3@ietf.org > Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:03:34 -0400 > Subject: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 = Virtualization >=20 > A new mailing list has been set up to explore possible IETF work in > the area of providing L2 network virtualization service over an L3 > (IP) overlay network. >=20 > As background, there are a number of drafts that relate to this area, > including: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility-00 >=20 > I've put together a first-cut at a problem statement that focuses on > the issues and potential work areas, without getting into solution > specifics. See: >=20 > = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-00.= txt >=20 > There have also been some related vendor announcements and > presentations as well (these are ones I happen to know of, there are > surely others). For example: >=20 > http://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/introducing-vxlan/ >=20 > = http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/white_pa= per_c11-685115.html >=20 > = http://blogs.vmware.com/console/2011/08/towards-virtualized-networking-for= -the-cloud.html >=20 > http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/SAC-442T >=20 > The list is called nvo3, for "Network Virtualization Over L3", aka > N-Vee-Oh-3 (we'll see how well that acronym sticks...). >=20 > I've put in a formal request to hold a BOF in Taipai, so we can > explore whether it makes sense to form a WG in this area. >=20 > Subscription information for the mailing list can be found at >=20 > List address: nvo3@ietf.org > Archive: = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/maillist.html > To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 >=20 > I look forward to your participation! >=20 > Thomas >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >=20 > ------- End of Forwarded Message From narten@us.ibm.com Mon Oct 3 16:56:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4023121F8EC8 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:56:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33pUyHwlnW8W for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (e36.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C5B21F8EC0 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 16:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p93Nq6PZ020732 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:52:06 -0600 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p93Nwt6K177998 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:58:56 -0600 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p93NwtsU014758 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:58:55 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-206-44.mts.ibm.com [9.65.206.44]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p93NwshU014742 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:58:55 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p93Nwlog009487; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:58:53 -0400 Message-Id: <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization In-reply-to: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" message dated "Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:51:05 -0500." Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:58:47 -0400 From: Thomas Narten Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 23:56:13 -0000 "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" writes: > The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work > related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed > requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - > see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM > mobility. Can you list which drafts these are? For the EVPN, that would presumably be: draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt What drafts relate to VM mobility? > The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP > tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group > has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all > the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC > related solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as > Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. Maybe, maybe not. Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the L2VPN work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the hosts that connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the hypervisors. Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches and virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs have a lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the way into switches and hypervisors. Does this make sense? Thomas From paul@unbehagen.net Mon Oct 3 17:00:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2220F21F8DAA for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:00:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cy6KdW4d4A5N for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872D921F8D83 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so5048641yxt.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.145.74 with SMTP id o50mr3187300yhj.36.1317686631968; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.71.219.159] ([166.205.11.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n67sm17558706yhi.9.2011.10.03.17.03.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:03:51 -0700 (PDT) References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8L1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8L1) From: Paul Unbehagen Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:03:41 -0600 To: Thomas Narten Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:00:49 -0000 I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. Wheth= er or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also be consider= ed an overlay over IP.=20 -- Paul Unbehagen On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" writes:= >=20 >> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work >> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed >> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - >> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM >> mobility. >=20 > Can you list which drafts these are? >=20 > For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >=20 > draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >=20 > What drafts relate to VM mobility? >=20 >> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP >> tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group >> has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all >> the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC >> related solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as >> Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. >=20 > Maybe, maybe not. >=20 > Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the L2VPN > work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, you > have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you want > to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the hosts that > connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, > sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are > picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >=20 > That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is they > are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >=20 > VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part of > the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > hypervisors. >=20 > Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches and > virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they > conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. They > just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs have a > lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > way into switches and hypervisors. >=20 > Does this make sense? >=20 > Thomas From narten@us.ibm.com Mon Oct 3 17:08:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A886521F8EFA for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:08:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1n1UCJDrTll6 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (e2.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAD021F8EF1 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by us.ibm.com with XMail ESMTP for from ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:11:08 -0400 Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com ([9.56.227.147]) by us.ibm.com ([192.168.1.102]) with XMail ESMTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:11:00 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p940AxfC2785310 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:10:59 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p940Awra014346 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:10:58 -0300 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-206-44.mts.ibm.com [9.65.206.44]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p940Awjr014284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:10:58 -0300 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p940AmIV009568; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:10:57 -0400 Message-Id: <201110040010.p940AmIV009568@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Paul Unbehagen Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization In-reply-to: References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Comments: In-reply-to Paul Unbehagen message dated "Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:03:41 -0600." Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:10:48 -0400 From: Thomas Narten x-cbid: 11100400-5112-0000-0000-000000C2CD94 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:08:23 -0000 So, let me try and separate this into two issues, so we don't mix things. 1) Yes, L2VPNs are a form of overlays. Overlays are a broad concept. So we can have a discussion as to whether the current charter already allows for this kind of work to be discussed here, at least in principle and based on what the charter allows. I gather at least some people are saying yes. 2) The work that is being proposed here seems very different from what the L2VPN WG has worked on in the past, or is actually working on today (or planning on working on based on the recent recharter). Or am I mistaken? What existing or planned work is this similar to? Thomas From jdrake@juniper.net Mon Oct 3 17:18:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4E221F8E3D for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:18:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.18 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.419, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LNUBPOfbN3+3 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1C321F8E08 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:21:30 PDT Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:16:49 -0700 From: John E Drake To: Thomas Narten , Paul Unbehagen Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:16:48 -0700 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AcyCKi17N5UKACyJRYOcnX5KVx1koQAAEnWA Message-ID: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A441401ED3@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <201110040010.p940AmIV009568@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201110040010.p940AmIV009568@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:18:57 -0000 Thomas, I have trouble understanding your previous email but your BoF announcement = listed a number of drafts and these drafts all clearly appear to be within = the scope of the L2VPN charter. Thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas Narten > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 8:11 PM > To: Paul Unbehagen > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > Virtualization >=20 > So, let me try and separate this into two issues, so we don't mix > things. >=20 > 1) Yes, L2VPNs are a form of overlays. Overlays are a broad > concept. So we can have a discussion as to whether the current charter > already allows for this kind of work to be discussed here, at least in > principle and based on what the charter allows. I gather at least some > people are saying yes. >=20 > 2) The work that is being proposed here seems very different from what > the L2VPN WG has worked on in the past, or is actually working on > today (or planning on working on based on the recent recharter). Or am > I mistaken? What existing or planned work is this similar to? >=20 > Thomas From yuqun.cao@gmail.com Mon Oct 3 18:26:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5049021F8C0D for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:26:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, J_CHICKENPOX_75=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lV5GPkbExrUC for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0B821F8BEB for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so7138598iab.31 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:29:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:references:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to :thread-index:x-mimeole; bh=gf+sR3MV9Jt1bDlwdoYWxR51GXSUEFml3Q3kfXNXqYU=; b=ZKMc6NBXf7HsIRewz9lVcNd6Qx4WMPjl55w6qSW52BzqN42epa8h791KgUK+HbPuid CRZO9QHheAfjPvBGfzJ6IlO8ne3Bln0nKjyHgLYJS9pEgdLrF83USTAe5EnCy4tsa147 CjAij9G3s+w4wnnWWn/BrT5KCuzgnZv4V299o= Received: by 10.231.21.26 with SMTP id h26mr1036128ibb.40.1317691765540; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from v2comsam ([36.248.2.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id el2sm33091031ibb.10.2011.10.03.18.29.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:29:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Sam Cao" To: References: Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:29:31 +0800 Message-ID: <198A58787E79434385495FBA25D1D89A@v2comsam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acx/DQRH6QchmSylRoqMcaz1cuqR+QDJ2ckg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:26:23 -0000 I support this. Yuqun (Sam) Cao E-mail: Yuqun.cao@gmail.com=20 -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED l2vpn-request@ietf.org =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA9=D4=C230=C8=D5 9:02 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: l2vpn@ietf.org =D6=F7=CC=E2: L2vpn Digest, Vol 88, Issue 10 If you have received this digest without all the individual message attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list subscription. To do so, go to=20 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME. You can set this option globally for all the list digests you receive at this point. Send L2vpn mailing list submissions to l2vpn@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to l2vpn-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at l2vpn-owner@ietf.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of L2vpn digest..." Today's Topics: 1. WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? (Giles Heron) 2. Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? (Simon Delord) 3. Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? (Rogers, Josh) 4. Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? (william.zayas@fibercrossing.net) 5. RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? (Raymond Key) 6. Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? (Mallette, Edwin) 7. RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? (Mach Chen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:32:34 +0100 From: Giles Heron To: Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by = March 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. = If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft = shouldn't be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. Thanks! Nabil & Giles ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:13:31 +0800 From: Simon Delord To: Giles Heron , l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" support, Simon 2011/9/30 Giles Heron > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have = a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by = March > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. = If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft > shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. > > Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:17:34 -0400 From: "Rogers, Josh" To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" I support it. Josh From: Simon Delord Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:13:31 -0400 To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" = Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? support,Simon 2011/9/30 Giles Heron This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by = March 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. = If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. Thanks! Nabil & Giles This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject = to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely = for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are = not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and = may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of = this E-mail and any printout. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:59:54 +0000 From: william.zayas@fibercrossing.net To: "Rogers, Josh" , l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" Support. Obrigado..:) -----Original Message----- From: Rogers, Josh [mailto:josh.rogers@twcable.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 05:17 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? I support it. Josh From: Simon Delord Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:13:31 = -0400 To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? support,Simon 2011/9/30 Giles Heron = This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter = E-Tree is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft = for E-Tree to IESG by March 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support = for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think = this draft shouldn't be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. Thanks! Nabil & Giles This E-mail and any of = its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which = is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belongi ng to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of = the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the = intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any = dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of = and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. = If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender = immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.=20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:51:22 +1030 From: Raymond Key To: , Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" I support. Raymond =20 > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:32:34 +0100 > Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? > From: giles.heron@gmail.com > To: l2vpn@ietf.org >=20 > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have = a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by = March > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. = If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. >=20 > Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Nabil & Giles >=20 >=20 =20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:36:35 -0400 From: "Mallette, Edwin" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" /Support Ed On 9/29/11 3:32 PM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 > >should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > >Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have = a >milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by = March >2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those >requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. = If >not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft >shouldn't >be adopted - which we can then debate. > >Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. > >Thanks! > >Nabil & Giles > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you = are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy = it. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:54:15 +0000 From: Mach Chen To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Message-ID: =09 = =09 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii Support! Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > Giles Heron > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 3:33 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? >=20 > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have = a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by = March > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. = If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. >=20 > Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Nabil & Giles >=20 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ L2vpn mailing list L2vpn@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn End of L2vpn Digest, Vol 88, Issue 10 ************************************* From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Oct 3 19:49:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37F921F8E8E for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:49:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QyU4zbVJM3Ww for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037EF21F8E86 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p942q97A005194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:52:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.112]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p942q9Bl018912 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:52:09 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.112]) with mapi; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:52:09 -0500 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: Thomas Narten Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 21:52:05 -0500 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AcyCKHBx95BuwYYhT02hkUN4J85/bQADDtIg Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC5894F2@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 02:49:07 -0000 Thomas, The challenges described in the drafts are definitely in scope for L2VPN an= d based on that it makes sense to do the initial analysis in L2VPN to ident= ify the overlap. If it looks like the work is diverging substantially from = the L2VPN scope then a BoF creation is the logical way to go.=20 See in-line for answers to your questions/comments... > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 4:59 PM > To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virt= ualization >=20 > "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" writes= : >=20 > > The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work > > related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed > > requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - > > see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM > > mobility. >=20 > Can you list which drafts these are? >=20 > For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >=20 > draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >=20 Yes... > What drafts relate to VM mobility? See http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raggarwa-data-center-mobility/ >=20 > > The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP > > tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group > > has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all > > the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC > > related solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as > > Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. >=20 > Maybe, maybe not. >=20 > Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the L2VPN > work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, you > have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you want > to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the hosts that > connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, > sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are > picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >=20 > That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > data center, but that is not a requirement.=20 Is there another draft on requirements? From the drafts you mention in your= initial nvo3 email it looks like connectivity across DCs is in scope for a= ll. I believe the use case is expanded L2 domain for VM mobility - e.g. the= use of Inter-DC resource pools for Disaster Prevention. > So the assumption is they > are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. DC requirements were added in the L2VPN charter but it looks like a clear d= efinition is required for Provider wording. L2 multi-tenancy beyond 4K VLAN= s is one of the major requirements in NVO3. That in my opinion clearly cro= sses the line between a regular DC operator serving a handful of tenants an= d a true Cloud Provider.=20 >=20 > VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part of > the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > hypervisors. >=20 > Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches and > virtual switches) that are part of the overlay.=20 > While they > conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. They > just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs have a > lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > way into switches and hypervisors. It is ok to define a requirement to support L2 overlay in these switches an= d hypervisors and L2VPN should get a chance to discuss it and eventually ad= dress it. But I believe it is way too early to decide there is nothing goo= d to be offered by L2VPN and re-start from zero the whole work.=20 Thanks, Florin >=20 > Does this make sense? >=20 > Thomas From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Oct 3 20:04:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 396A521F8EC4 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:04:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.789 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.460, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uLAfUEcwpP0P for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622F621F8EC2 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p9437u9F014014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 05:07:56 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 05:07:56 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 05:07:54 +0200 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AcyCKR62KjRNcCvtTaG53llSIJk4KwAGa3MA Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671AD3677D@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 03:04:55 -0000 +1 -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of P= aul Unbehagen Sent: dinsdag 4 oktober 2011 2:04 To: Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtua= lization I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. Whet= her or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also be consid= ered an overlay over IP.=20 -- Paul Unbehagen On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" writes= : >=20 >> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work >> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed >> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - >> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM >> mobility. >=20 > Can you list which drafts these are? >=20 > For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >=20 > draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >=20 > What drafts relate to VM mobility? >=20 >> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP >> tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group >> has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all >> the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC >> related solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as >> Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. >=20 > Maybe, maybe not. >=20 > Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the L2VPN > work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, you > have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you want > to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the hosts that > connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, > sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are > picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >=20 > That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is they > are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >=20 > VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part of > the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > hypervisors. >=20 > Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches and > virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they > conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. They > just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs have a > lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > way into switches and hypervisors. >=20 > Does this make sense? >=20 > Thomas From joel.pauling@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Oct 3 20:11:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A842921F8EE0 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:11:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KqdctQ8mSBBn for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35C721F8EDF for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 20:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p943EHix014708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 05:14:18 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA1X.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.65]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 05:14:17 +0200 From: "PAULING, JOEL (JOEL)" To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" , "'Paul Unbehagen'" , "'Thomas Narten'" Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 05:14:16 +0200 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AcyCKR62KjRNcCvtTaG53llSIJk4KwAGa3MAAAA5iMo= Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Cc: "'l2vpn@ietf.org'" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 03:11:17 -0000 SGFzIGFueW9uZSBsb29rZWQgYXQgdGhlIGwydmRlIGNvZGViYXNlLiBJdCBpcyBtYXR1cmUgYW5k IGZlYXR1cmVzIGEgbG90IG9mIHdoYXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gYmVpbmcgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGhlcmUuCgot LXNlbnQgZnJvbSBhbiBhbmRyb2lkIGhhbmRzZXQtLQ0KDQogLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdl LS0tLS0NCkZyb206IAlIZW5kZXJpY2t4LCBXaW0gKFdpbSkgW21haWx0bzp3aW0uaGVuZGVyaWNr eEBhbGNhdGVsLWx1Y2VudC5jb21dDQpTZW50OglNb25kYXksIE9jdG9iZXIgMDMsIDIwMTEgMTA6 MDggUE0gQ2VudHJhbCBTdGFuZGFyZCBUaW1lDQpUbzoJUGF1bCBVbmJlaGFnZW47IFRob21hcyBO YXJ0ZW4NCkNjOglsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDoJUkU6IENhbGwgZm9yIFBhcnRpY2lw YXRpb246IFVzaW5nIElQIE92ZXJsYXlzIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgTDIJVmlydHVhbGl6YXRpb24NCg0K KzENCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGwydnBuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0 Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpsMnZwbi1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgUGF1bCBV bmJlaGFnZW4NClNlbnQ6IGRpbnNkYWcgNCBva3RvYmVyIDIwMTEgMjowNA0KVG86IFRob21hcyBO YXJ0ZW4NCkNjOiBsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IENhbGwgZm9yIFBhcnRpY2lw YXRpb246IFVzaW5nIElQIE92ZXJsYXlzIHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgTDIgVmlydHVhbGl6YXRpb24NCg0K SSBoYXZlIHRvIGFncmVlIHdpdGggRmxvcmluIG9uIHRoaXMgb25lLiBUaGVzZSBhcmUgZXNzZW50 aWFsbHkgTDJWUE5zLiBXaGV0aGVyIG9yIG5vdCB0aGV5IGFyZSBvdmVyIElQIG9yIG5vdCBpcyBp cnJlbGV2YW50LiBWUExTIGNvdWxkIGFsc28gYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCBhbiBvdmVybGF5IG92ZXIg SVAuIA0KDQotLQ0KUGF1bCBVbmJlaGFnZW4NCg0KDQpPbiBPY3QgMywgMjAxMSwgYXQgNTo1OCBQ TSwgVGhvbWFzIE5hcnRlbiA8bmFydGVuQHVzLmlibS5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+ICJCYWx1cywg RmxvcmluIFN0ZWxpYW4gKEZsb3JpbikiIDxmbG9yaW4uYmFsdXNAYWxjYXRlbC1sdWNlbnQuY29t PiB3cml0ZXM6DQo+IA0KPj4gVGhlIEwyVlBOIGNoYXJ0ZXIgd2FzIG1vZGlmaWVkIGEgZmV3IG1v bnRocyBhZ28gdG8gaW5jbHVkZSB3b3JrDQo+PiByZWxhdGVkIHRvIERDL0Nsb3VkIG5ldHdvcmtp bmcuIFRoZXJlIHdlcmUgYSBudW1iZXIgb2YgcHJvcG9zZWQNCj4+IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBhbmQg c29sdXRpb24gaW5pdGlhdGl2ZXMgdGhhdCBwcm9tcHRlZCB0aGUgY2hhbmdlIC0NCj4+IHNlZSBk cmFmdHMgb24gRVZQTiwgUEJCLUVWUE4gKHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cywgc29sdXRpb25zKSBhbmQgVk0N Cj4+IG1vYmlsaXR5Lg0KPiANCj4gQ2FuIHlvdSBsaXN0IHdoaWNoIGRyYWZ0cyB0aGVzZSBhcmU/ DQo+IA0KPiBGb3IgdGhlIEVWUE4sIHRoYXQgd291bGQgcHJlc3VtYWJseSBiZToNCj4gDQo+IGRy YWZ0LXJhZ2dhcndhLXNhamFzc2ktbDJ2cG4tZXZwbi0wNC50eHQNCj4gZHJhZnQtc2FqYXNzaS1s MnZwbi1ldnBuLXNlZ21lbnQtcm91dGUtMDAudHh0DQo+IGRyYWZ0LXNhamFzc2ktbDJ2cG4tcGJi LWV2cG4tMDIudHh0DQo+IGRyYWZ0LXNhamFzc2ktcmFnZ2Fyd2EtbDJ2cG4tZXZwbi1yZXEtMDEu dHh0DQo+IA0KPiBXaGF0IGRyYWZ0cyByZWxhdGUgdG8gVk0gbW9iaWxpdHk/DQo+IA0KPj4gVGhl IHNvbHV0aW9uIGRyYWZ0cyB5b3UgbGlzdCBiZWxvdyBhcmUgYWJvdXQgTDIgb3ZlciBzb21lIHNv cnQgb2YgSVANCj4+IHR1bm5lbHMuIElQIFBTTiBpcyBpbiB0aGUgY2hhcnRlciBmb3IgTDJWUE4g YW5kIHRoZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwDQo+PiBoYXMgYWNjdW11bGF0ZWQgYSBsb3Qgb2YgZXhwZXJp ZW5jZSBpbiBteSBvcGluaW9uIGRlYWxpbmcgd2l0aCBhbGwNCj4+IHRoZSBWUE4vbXVsdGktdGVu YW5jeSBjb21wb25lbnRzLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgTDIvSVAgc29sdXRpb24uIEFueSBEQw0KPj4gcmVs YXRlZCBzb2x1dGlvbnMgbmVlZCB0byBhbHNvIGludGVyb3BlcmF0ZSB3aXRoIGV4aXN0aW5nIFZQ TnMgYXMNCj4+IENsb3VkIFByb3ZpZGVyIHdhbnQgdG8gZGVsaXZlciBDbG91ZCBTZXJ2aWNlcyB0 byBWUE4gY3VzdG9tZXJzLg0KPiANCj4gTWF5YmUsIG1heWJlIG5vdC4NCj4gDQo+IExldCBtZSBi ZSBjbGVhciBhYm91dCBvbmUgdGhpbmcgdGhlcmUuIE15IGltcHJlc3Npb24gaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUg TDJWUE4NCj4gd29yayBoYXMgbGFyZ2VseSBiZWVuIGFib3V0IGNvbm5lY3RpbmcgTDIgTEFOcyB0 b2dldGhlci4gVGhhdCBpcywgeW91DQo+IGhhdmUgZXhpc3RuZyBMMiBMQU5zIChvciBWTEFOcywg ZXRjLikgYXQgbXVsdGlwbGUgc2l0ZXMsIGFuZCB5b3Ugd2FudA0KPiB0byBnbHVlIHRoZW0gdG9n ZXRoZXIgc28gdGhleSBsb29rIGxpa2Ugb25lIGJpZyBMQU4gKHRvIHRoZSBob3N0cyB0aGF0DQo+ IGNvbm5lY3QgdG8gdGhlbSkuIEhvc3RzL3NlcnZlcnMgaW50ZXJhY3Qgd2l0aCB0aGUgbmV0d29y ayBhcyBiZWZvcmUsDQo+IHNlbmRpbmcgTDIgZnJhbWVzIG92ZXIgYW4gRXRoZXJuZXQuIEF0IHNv bWUgcG9pbnQsIHRoZSBMMiBmcmFtZXMgYXJlDQo+IHBpY2tlZCB1cCBieSBhbiBkZXZpY2UgdGhh dCB0cmFuc3BvcnRzIHRoZW0gb3ZlciB0aGUgV0FOIGFzDQo+IGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlICh1c2luZyBM MlRQdjMsIE1QTFMsIGV0Yy4pLg0KPiANCj4gVGhhdCBpcyBub3Qgd2hhdCBvdmVybGF5cyBhcmUg YWJvdXQuIENvbmNlcHR1YWxseSwgYW4gb3ZlcmxheSBjYW4NCj4gcmVzaWRlIGVudGlyZWx5IHdp dGhpbiBvbmUgZGF0YWNlbnRlci4gVGhleSBjYW4gZXh0ZW5kIG91dHNpZGUgdGhlDQo+IGRhdGEg Y2VudGVyLCBidXQgdGhhdCBpcyBub3QgYSByZXF1aXJlbWVudC4gU28gdGhlIGFzc3VtcHRpb24g aXMgdGhleQ0KPiBhcmUgc2V0dXAgYW5kIG1hbmFnZWQgYnkgdGhlIGRhdGFjZW50ZXIgb3BlcmF0 b3IsIG5vdCBhIHByb3ZpZG9yLg0KPiANCj4gVk1zIG9uIGEgc2VydmVyIHJ1biBvbiBhIGh5cGVy dmlzb3IuIFRoZSBoeXBlcnZpc29yIGl0c2VsZiBpcyBwYXJ0IG9mDQo+IHRoZSBvdmVybGF5LiBU aGF0IGlzLCB0aGUgb3ZlcmxheSBleHRlbmRzIGV2ZXJ5d2hlcmUgd2l0aGluIHRoZQ0KPiBkYXRh Y2VudGVyLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgYWxsIHRoZSB3YXkgdXAgdG8gdGhlIGFjY2VzcyBzd2l0Y2hlcyBh bmQgdGhlDQo+IGh5cGVydmlzb3JzLg0KPiANCj4gVGh1cywgYW4gb3ZlcmxheSB3aWxsIGhhdmUg bG90cyBvZiAic2ltcGxlIiBkZXZpY2VzIChpLmUsIHN3aXRjaGVzIGFuZA0KPiB2aXJ0dWFsIHN3 aXRjaGVzKSB0aGF0IGFyZSBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBvdmVybGF5LiBXaGlsZSB0aGV5DQo+IGNvbmNl cHR1YWxseSBtYXkgaGF2ZSB0dW5uZWxzIHRvIGFsbCB0aGUgb3RoZXIgc3dpdGNoZXMgaW4gdGhl DQo+IG92ZXJsYXksIGluIHByYWN0aWNlIHRoZXkgZG9uJ3QgbmVlZCBtdWNoIHBlci1kZXN0aW5h dGlvbiBzdGF0ZS4gVGhleQ0KPiBqdXN0IHR1bm5lbCBvbiBkZW1hbmQuIEluIGNvbnRyYXN0LCB0 aGUgZXhpc3RpbmcgTDJWUCBhcHByb2FjaHMgaGF2ZSBhDQo+IGxvdCBtb3JlIHN0YXRlIHBlciBl bmRwb2ludCBhbmQgYXJlIGp1c3Qgbm90IGRlc2lnbmVkIHRvIGdvIGFsbCB0aGUNCj4gd2F5IGlu dG8gc3dpdGNoZXMgYW5kIGh5cGVydmlzb3JzLg0KPiANCj4gRG9lcyB0aGlzIG1ha2Ugc2Vuc2U/ DQo+IA0KPiBUaG9tYXMNCg== From sajassi@cisco.com Mon Oct 3 23:47:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C6D21F8BBC for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:47:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.666, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Taew3HkQCjld for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9A621F8BB9 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:47:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; l=4047; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317711028; x=1318920628; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=+x6H6ztBm/nS5A0wDwXDcyGQajQLQA8oUAMfBe1gHhY=; b=QYluHJ4e8mFmyBGWdyXaKFUk+u3rJxuqWkNP5O0puSfE3vl3ahPSYNo2 SBXjjgtfEaDZRIqRPT5JbbgOZ7MX06uvVJYTDiuTjS4GRgxVixuekoLrS kdOkbkPvVPOjJEf7LWvFRqrAU3+y3TcYMrRjxaSOmwio3cpmzgLrz02V5 U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAIWrik6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABCqAOBBYFTAQEBAwESAQoTCi0SBQsCAQgiBhgGAVYBAQQbEweHWppSAZ4MhkFhBId4kR6MMg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,483,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="5774751" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2011 06:50:27 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p946oRj3023053; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 06:50:27 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.68]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:50:26 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 x-cr-hashedpuzzle: Ac9s Dpvl Fdfa KIev KKLT K2Ze K7gR OiNn QshA QtgE SXrI VPjU XTai YJ+0 c6v9 eai0; 3; ZgBsAG8AcgBpAG4ALgBiAGEAbAB1AHMAQABhAGwAYwBhAHQAZQBsAC0AbAB1AGMAZQBuAHQALgBjAG8AbQA7AGwAMgB2AHAAbgBAAGkAZQB0AGYALgBvAHIAZwA7AG4AYQByAHQAZQBuAEAAdQBzAC4AaQBiAG0ALgBjAG8AbQA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {4E148461-7A65-45EA-8C14-4E9211F508A2}; cwBhAGoAYQBzAHMAaQBAAGMAaQBzAGMAbwAuAGMAbwBtAA==; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 06:50:19 GMT; UgBFADoAIABDAGEAbABsACAAZgBvAHIAIABQAGEAcgB0AGkAYwBpAHAAYQB0AGkAbwBuADoAIABVAHMAaQBuAGcAIABJAFAAIABPAHYAZQByAGwAYQB5AHMAIAB0AG8AIABwAHIAbwB2AGkAZABlACAATAAyAFYAaQByAHQAdQBhAGwAaQB6AGEAdABpAG8AbgA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable x-cr-puzzleid: {4E148461-7A65-45EA-8C14-4E9211F508A2} Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2Virtualization Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:50:19 -0700 Message-ID: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56080ED919@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2Virtualization Thread-Index: AcyCKHnCdYefz6IaSLyAE5midd0ShQAEcjgw References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Thomas Narten" , "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Oct 2011 06:50:26.0957 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6072BD0:01CC8261] Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 06:47:24 -0000 Hi Thomas, >=20 > Can you list which drafts these are? >=20 > For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >=20 > draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >=20 > What drafts relate to VM mobility? >=20 The solution drafts (1st and 3rd ones above) have consideration for VM mobility. Basically, as part of an L2-solution, host movement needs to be handled regardless of whether the host is physical or virtual. Furthermore, the 1st draft has consideration for ARP optimization/suppression and the 3rd draft will cover that in its next version based on the input/comments received.=20 > > The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP > > tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group > > has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all > > the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC > > related solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as > > Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. >=20 > Maybe, maybe not. >=20 > Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the L2VPN > work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, you > have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you want > to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the hosts that > connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, > sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are > picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >=20 > That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is they > are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >=20 > VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part of > the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > hypervisors. >=20 We can group the L2-solutions under L2VPN into two categories: a) PE-based solutions and b) CE-based solutions. Although the primary emphasis has been thus far on PE-based solutions, the CE-based solutions doesn't need to be excluded. Having the encapsulation to be performed by the hypervisors or the virtual switch, can fall into either of the two categories depending whether you consider the virtual switch (or hypervisor) as part of the DC network or not. So, although the application is different (DC versus DCI versus Carrier Eth versus etc.), the L2-solution over IP (or MPLS) seems to have a lot in common across all these different applications and it would be good to see whether the DC overlay requirements are being met within L2VPN or not before talking about a new WG. =20 > Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches and > virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they > conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. They > just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs have a > lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > way into switches and hypervisors. >=20 The number of states on the edge device is a function of the location of the edge device - closer to the host requires fewer states and farther from the host, it requires more state (n-PE requires lot more states than u-PE). L2VPN solutions covers both end of the spectrum.=20 Again, it would be good to start from the requirements and see whether there are any new requirements that cannot be met within L2VPN new charter/solutions. Cheers, Ali=20 > Does this make sense? >=20 > Thomas From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Tue Oct 4 05:05:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A7021F8C75 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 05:05:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.421, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MLB_Stock6=1.56] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t0BkJRrEPya3 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 05:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe01.verizon.com (fldsmtpe01.verizon.com [140.108.26.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5499921F8C80 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 05:05:36 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi03.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.145]) by fldsmtpe01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2011 12:08:40 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,485,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="151333279" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb05.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.87]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2011 12:08:40 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.3.30]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.87]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:08:40 -0400 To: Thomas Narten , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:08:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AcyCjlpRdsWN9w9MRaaywx4hfpyneA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:05:37 -0000 Thomas, Thanks for forwarding. The L2vpn WG charter that has been recently approved states:=20 "The L2VPN working group is responsible for defining and specifying a limited number of solutions for supporting provider-provisioned Layer-2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs). It will also address requirements driven by cloud computing services and data centers as they apply to Layer-2 VPN services. Layer-2 VPNs defined by L2VPN operate over pseudowires (PWs) as defined by the PWE3 WG or over IP or MPLS PSN tunnels. A L2VPN emulates a "native" service over a PSN that is adequately faithful to, but may not be entirely indistinguishable from the native service itself." The goal is to address the data center and cloud computing requirements as they pertain to L2 services. In addition, the packet switched network can be IP or MPLS as stated. There have been individual drafts in the WG Such E-VPN or PBB-EVPN for instance that are mainly driven by data centers and data center interconnects. That is in addition to other RFCs on VPLS, VPMS, and PBB-PE model etc. So, I think from an objective opinion of addressing multi-tenant data center and data center interconnect scale, resiliency, efficiency, etc., there is overlap between this work and the l2vpn WG. The following is my personal opinion: I looked briefly through the drafts you attached. I think there are two components: (1) scaling the number of l2 domains with a 24-bit identifier that is coincidently (or may not be) the same size as an I-SID in the IEEE 802.1ah PBB header, and (2) tunneling of the layer2 traffic over IP to avoid STP (a goal in many existing drafts) and take advantage of the IP layer for ECMP, multicast etc. The mapping to the 24-bit network identifier or Tenant 24-bit network identifier is dine at the hypervisor or at a gateway in the first two drafts. I think short of the actual encoding, this is in a way similar to PBB where you can start the PBB encap at the hypervisor if such support exists or at the TOR by mapping a VLAN ID to the 24-bit I-SID. How you switch that traffic within the data center, can be native layer2, it can be tunneled over IP or MPLS. That tunneling at least is expected to happen across the WAN for data center interconnect. There are things that are mentioned related to multicast that can be used or have existing parallel mechanisms to address that. My point in stating that is not necessarily to imply only one way that things can be done or should be done. However, it is to say that there are existing tools or tools in the work that address these problems and for layer2 it capitalizes on work in the IEEE and IETF. If there are additional things that need to be developed to address deficiencies/gaps in these tools, then they should be defined. Thus, It seems to me what is suggested here is a providing a Layer2 VPN service and as a result that should be part of the l2vpn working group evolving work and the solution, set of solution or solution options if warranted can be defined there so that the problem space can be addressed in one place without fragmentation.=20 Thanks, Nabil On 10/3/11 4:26 PM, "Thomas Narten" wrote: >FYI. It has been suggested that this work area overlaps with L2VPN's >charter. That was not my starting point, but I also haven't followed >this WG in recent years. > >In any case, I'd welcome feedback and a sense for whether this is >in-scope for this WG. > >Thomas > >------- Forwarded Message > >From: Thomas Narten >To: ietf@ietf.org >Cc: nvo3@ietf.org >Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:03:34 -0400 >Subject: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >Virtualization > >A new mailing list has been set up to explore possible IETF work in >the area of providing L2 network virtualization service over an L3 >(IP) overlay network. > >As background, there are a number of drafts that relate to this area, >including: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility-00 > >I've put together a first-cut at a problem statement that focuses on >the issues and potential work areas, without getting into solution >specifics. See: > > =20 >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-00. >txt > =20 >There have also been some related vendor announcements and >presentations as well (these are ones I happen to know of, there are >surely others). For example: > > http://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/introducing-vxlan/ > > =20 >http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/white_pa >per_c11-685115.html > > =20 >http://blogs.vmware.com/console/2011/08/towards-virtualized-networking-for >-the-cloud.html > =20 > http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/SAC-442T > >The list is called nvo3, for "Network Virtualization Over L3", aka >N-Vee-Oh-3 (we'll see how well that acronym sticks...). > >I've put in a formal request to hold a BOF in Taipai, so we can >explore whether it makes sense to form a WG in this area. > >Subscription information for the mailing list can be found at > > List address: nvo3@ietf.org > Archive:=20 >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/maillist.html > To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > >I look forward to your participation! > >Thomas > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > >------- End of Forwarded Message From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Oct 4 08:32:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EB721F8ADC; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.586 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fgqlmZfOrdlw; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5795821F8A62; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60 Message-ID: <20111004153249.23861.36350.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:32:49 -0700 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:32:50 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Extensions to VPLS PE model for Provider Backbone Bridgi= ng Author(s) : Florin Balus Matthew Bocci Mustapha Aissaoui Ali Sajassi Nabil Bitar Raymond Zhang Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2011-10-04 IEEE 802.1ah standard [IEEE802.1ah], also known as Provider Backbone Bridges (PBB) defines an architecture and bridge protocols for interconnection of multiple Provider Bridge Networks (PBNs). PBB was defined in IEEE as a connectionless technology based on multipoint VLAN tunnels. MSTP is used as the core control plane for loop avoidance and load balancing. As a result, the coverage of the solution is limited by STP scale in the core of large service provider networks. PBB on the other hand can be used to attain better scalability in terms of number of customer MAC addresses and number of service instances that can be supported. Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4664] provides a framework for extending Ethernet LAN services, using MPLS tunneling capabilities, through a routed MPLS backbone without running (M)STP across the backbone. As a result, VPLS has been deployed on a large scale in service provider networks. This draft discusses extensions to the VPLS PE model required to incorporate desirable PBB components while maintaining the Service Provider fit of the initial model. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04.t= xt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04.txt From linda.dunbar@huawei.com Tue Oct 4 09:04:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CE021F8D6A for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:04:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RUEGoY6eo25u for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B6921F8D63 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSJ0026YU0G99@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:05:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.4.104]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSJ00AUVU0FJ0@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:05:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from DFWEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.101) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:05:04 -0700 Received: from DFWEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.111]) by DFWEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::f07f:889f:78ef:8df3%13]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:04:57 -0700 Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:04:56 +0000 From: Linda Dunbar Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.192.11.155] To: Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Message-id: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US Thread-topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-index: AQHMggrhmfy5oZaB5EK0QNUSD9DzmpVrnlyAgAAjroCAAAFegIAAlpzA X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <201110032358.p93Nwlog009487@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:07:04 -0700 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:04:26 -0000 Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another network? If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. Linda Dunbar > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Paul Unbehagen > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM > To: Thomas Narten > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > Virtualization > > I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. > Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also > be considered an overlay over IP. > > -- > Paul Unbehagen > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" > writes: > > > >> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work > >> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed > >> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - > >> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM > >> mobility. > > > > Can you list which drafts these are? > > > > For the EVPN, that would presumably be: > > > > draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > > draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > > draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt > > > > What drafts relate to VM mobility? > > > >> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP > >> tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group > >> has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all > >> the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC > >> related solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as > >> Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. > > > > Maybe, maybe not. > > > > Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the > L2VPN > > work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, you > > have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you want > > to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the hosts > that > > connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, > > sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are > > picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > > appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). > > > > That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > > reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > > data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is they > > are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. > > > > VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part of > > the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > > datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > > hypervisors. > > > > Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches > and > > virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they > > conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > > overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. They > > just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs have > a > > lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > > way into switches and hypervisors. > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > Thomas From giles.heron@gmail.com Tue Oct 4 09:45:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7F221F8C3D for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:45:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.074 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.074 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.525, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TkACI8v1N6SO for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AB421F8C33 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh21 with SMTP id 21so871592wyh.31 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ue5PDSNbYKHFljhKX56U+ttqRb1jIhQI97fEWRBawEw=; b=nZucoVBYNm0hMIJnEdrLjigZmsYiAe6D7DnZWhHtdi5za6/PoOX2UBp9RD3xAKWNM7 cDq774DsAJ6dzRBX4j5TQtryIgUvyLWUb4Lyrg8DdpY1iIv1fblQpwXhb1tIHiX/rBrs jc7zRZRMqf3DBomst1+mCy09EIIj2l80/uYD4= Received: by 10.227.36.229 with SMTP id u37mr1801458wbd.21.1317746922152; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [144.254.149.236] (dhcp-144-254-149-236.cisco.com. [144.254.149.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ei2sm5017842wbb.25.2011.10.04.09.48.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:48:40 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:48:42 +0100 Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization From: Giles Heron To: Linda Dunbar , Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AQHMggrhmfy5oZaB5EK0QNUSD9DzmpVrnlyAgAAjroCAAAFegIAAlpzAgAAM2P8= In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:45:38 -0000 I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? Giles On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another network? > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. > > Linda Dunbar > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Paul Unbehagen >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM >> To: Thomas Narten >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >> Virtualization >> >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also >> be considered an overlay over IP. >> >> -- >> Paul Unbehagen >> >> >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >> >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" >> writes: >>> >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM >>>> mobility. >>> >>> Can you list which drafts these are? >>> >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >>> >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >>> >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? >>> >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP >>>> tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group >>>> has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all >>>> the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC >>>> related solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as >>>> Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. >>> >>> Maybe, maybe not. >>> >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the >> L2VPN >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, you >>> have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you want >>> to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the hosts >> that >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >>> >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is they >>> are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >>> >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part of >>> the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the >>> hypervisors. >>> >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches >> and >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. They >>> just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs have >> a >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the >>> way into switches and hypervisors. >>> >>> Does this make sense? >>> >>> Thomas From david.i.allan@ericsson.com Tue Oct 4 10:04:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23BCA21F8C67 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:04:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.472 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9peuf2EIMEkp for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579C021F8C13 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p94H7bF3027686; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:07:49 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.120]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:07:44 -0400 From: David Allan I To: Giles Heron , Linda Dunbar , Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:07:43 -0400 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AQHMggrhmfy5oZaB5EK0QNUSD9DzmpVrnlyAgAAjroCAAAFegIAAlpzAgAAM2P+AAAItAA== Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223CEEC90@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:04:48 -0000 I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo.... But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other networ= king overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying some kind o= f hybrid network. I do not think that is the design intent of this exercise= . This is a different technology set that those explored by L2VPN to date e= xtended to a vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There is no other Ethern= et networking or emulation in the equation. N'est pas? That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provider pr= ovisioned L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy clo= ud. Many of the issues discussed in the problem statement draft explicitly = overlap the class of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, particularly w.r.t= . multicast... The technologies have been changed to protect the innocent, = that's all. My 2 cents D=20 -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtua= lization I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? Giles On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another net= work? > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. >=20 > Linda Dunbar >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 >> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM >> To: Thomas Narten >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2=20 >> Virtualization >>=20 >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also=20 >> be considered an overlay over IP. >>=20 >> -- >> Paul Unbehagen >>=20 >>=20 >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >>=20 >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" >> writes: >>>=20 >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work=20 >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed=20 >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change -=20 >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM=20 >>>> mobility. >>>=20 >>> Can you list which drafts these are? >>>=20 >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >>>=20 >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >>>=20 >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? >>>=20 >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of=20 >>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working=20 >>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing=20 >>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP=20 >>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also interoperate with=20 >>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN = customers. >>>=20 >>> Maybe, maybe not. >>>=20 >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the >> L2VPN >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is,=20 >>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you=20 >>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the=20 >>> hosts >> that >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before,=20 >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are=20 >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as=20 >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >>>=20 >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can=20 >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the=20 >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is=20 >>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >>>=20 >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part=20 >>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the=20 >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the=20 >>> hypervisors. >>>=20 >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches >> and >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they=20 >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the=20 >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state.=20 >>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs=20 >>> have >> a >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the=20 >>> way into switches and hypervisors. >>>=20 >>> Does this make sense? >>>=20 >>> Thomas From linda.dunbar@huawei.com Tue Oct 4 10:17:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EEE521F8C2F for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:17:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.408 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.191, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iwr9v1LfR+Lp for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDE421F8C1E for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSJ00199X7LOV@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:14:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.4.104]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSJ00A5TX78J0@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:14:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:14:00 -0700 Received: from DFWEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.111]) by DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:13:53 -0700 Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:13:53 +0000 From: Linda Dunbar Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.192.11.155] To: Giles Heron , Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Message-id: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B956@dfweml506-mbx> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US Thread-topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-index: AQHMgrWBJjt3L2jZzEqus9FfoL8/zJVsa82w X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:17:30 -0000 Giles, Thank you for the clarification. Based on your clarification, TRILL is not in the scope of L2VPN because TRILL is not IP or MPLS. Then MAC-in-MAC is not in the scope of L2VPN either, correct? Linda > -----Original Message----- > From: Giles Heron [mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:49 AM > To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > Virtualization > > I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). > > In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? > > Giles > > On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > > > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another > network? > > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. > > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. > > > > Linda Dunbar > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > >> Of Paul Unbehagen > >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM > >> To: Thomas Narten > >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > >> Virtualization > >> > >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially > L2VPNs. > >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could > also > >> be considered an overlay over IP. > >> > >> -- > >> Paul Unbehagen > >> > >> > >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > >> > >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" > >> writes: > >>> > >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work > >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed > >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - > >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM > >>>> mobility. > >>> > >>> Can you list which drafts these are? > >>> > >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: > >>> > >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt > >>> > >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? > >>> > >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of > IP > >>>> tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group > >>>> has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all > >>>> the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC > >>>> related solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as > >>>> Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. > >>> > >>> Maybe, maybe not. > >>> > >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the > >> L2VPN > >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, > you > >>> have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you > want > >>> to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the hosts > >> that > >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, > >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames > are > >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). > >>> > >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is > they > >>> are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. > >>> > >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part > of > >>> the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > >>> hypervisors. > >>> > >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches > >> and > >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they > >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. > They > >>> just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs > have > >> a > >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > >>> way into switches and hypervisors. > >>> > >>> Does this make sense? > >>> > >>> Thomas > From davari@broadcom.com Tue Oct 4 10:22:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DAC21F8BEF for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:22:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.843, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GqhkGcnhjeIk for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mms1.broadcom.com (mms1.broadcom.com [216.31.210.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8250F21F8BDB for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.192.224] by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:32:33 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 02CED230-5797-4B57-9875-D5D2FEE4708A Received: from SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.130]) by SJEXCHHUB01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.224]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:25:36 -0700 From: "Shahram Davari" To: "David Allan I" , "Giles Heron" , "Linda Dunbar" , "Paul Unbehagen" , "Thomas Narten" Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:25:35 -0700 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AQHMggrhmfy5oZaB5EK0QNUSD9DzmpVrnlyAgAAjroCAAAFegIAAlpzAgAAM2P+AAAItAIAAA9RQ Message-ID: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223CEEC90@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223CEEC90@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 62959CBB3JW1230658-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:22:49 -0000 Here is my 2c: There is certainly big overlap between data center networking and L2VPN. Ho= wever there are also some data center requirements, which I am not sure is = in the scope of L2VPN WG such as: 1) Private IP addresses are OK in data center, since it is confined to a cl= ose environment 2) Most likely no IPV6 is needed=20 3) Scales are much higher than Service Provider networks. For example there= can be tens of thousands of Top of Rack switches and millions of VPNs 4) connection Security is not a big concern=20 5) OAM is not a big concern=20 6) Advanced load balancing is required including L2-L7=20 7) Efficient Multicast from multiple members of a multicast group is requir= ed 8) Network management does a lot of the control plane functions 9) Core of data center is not MPLS (just IP or Ethernet) 10) Interworking between Data centers is required (may require translation = of VPN identifier from local to global) Thx Shahram -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of D= avid Allan I Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:08 AM To: Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtua= lization I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo.... But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other networ= king overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying some kind o= f hybrid network. I do not think that is the design intent of this exercise= . This is a different technology set that those explored by L2VPN to date e= xtended to a vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There is no other Ethern= et networking or emulation in the equation. N'est pas? That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provider pr= ovisioned L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy clo= ud. Many of the issues discussed in the problem statement draft explicitly = overlap the class of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, particularly w.r.t= . multicast... The technologies have been changed to protect the innocent, = that's all. My 2 cents D=20 -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtua= lization I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? Giles On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another net= work? > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. >=20 > Linda Dunbar >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 >> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM >> To: Thomas Narten >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2=20 >> Virtualization >>=20 >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also=20 >> be considered an overlay over IP. >>=20 >> -- >> Paul Unbehagen >>=20 >>=20 >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >>=20 >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" >> writes: >>>=20 >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work=20 >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed=20 >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change -=20 >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM=20 >>>> mobility. >>>=20 >>> Can you list which drafts these are? >>>=20 >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >>>=20 >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >>>=20 >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? >>>=20 >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of=20 >>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working=20 >>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing=20 >>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP=20 >>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also interoperate with=20 >>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN = customers. >>>=20 >>> Maybe, maybe not. >>>=20 >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the >> L2VPN >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is,=20 >>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you=20 >>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the=20 >>> hosts >> that >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before,=20 >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are=20 >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as=20 >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >>>=20 >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can=20 >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the=20 >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is=20 >>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >>>=20 >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part=20 >>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the=20 >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the=20 >>> hypervisors. >>>=20 >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches >> and >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they=20 >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the=20 >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state.=20 >>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs=20 >>> have >> a >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the=20 >>> way into switches and hypervisors. >>>=20 >>> Does this make sense? >>>=20 >>> Thomas From giles.heron@gmail.com Tue Oct 4 10:31:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40BA21F8E09 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:31:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.837 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.763, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wECrbZdBxncl for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C844821F8E30 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:31:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwf22 with SMTP id 22so814883wwf.13 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:34:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3VH5sMhMaBSDanjWfc6eetHOiCspVUs69BIRv/bs6qc=; b=Dgv8E6qo+9VMQeQgKuzSD1i6uBiEXY5UOWbdKqDHH50Mkat41iI8UZ4clTOivf81rP S5DsqB787ZL6eVzHtvPwvhzp7KcQL1ixeOpbgS6NU9TZVJw4YXpZsorTiQHzWvKAEpBb MdrYJNFL+I1FTYjTiDohZHIprfNE6QiXvOmGw= Received: by 10.227.113.133 with SMTP id a5mr1807837wbq.70.1317749674603; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [144.254.149.236] (dhcp-144-254-149-236.cisco.com. [144.254.149.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id es5sm5331348wbb.11.2011.10.04.10.34.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:34:33 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:34:38 +0100 Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization From: Giles Heron To: Linda Dunbar , Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AQHMgrWBJjt3L2jZzEqus9FfoL8/zJVsa82wgAAGj9Q= In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B956@dfweml506-mbx> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:31:31 -0000 Right - MAC-in-MAC would be out of scope. But MAC-in-MAC over IP is potentially in scope as it provides for multi-tenant L2 over an IP PSN. Giles On 04/10/2011 18:13, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > Giles, > > Thank you for the clarification. Based on your clarification, TRILL is not in > the scope of L2VPN because TRILL is not IP or MPLS. > Then MAC-in-MAC is not in the scope of L2VPN either, correct? > > Linda > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Giles Heron [mailto:giles.heron@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:49 AM >> To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >> Virtualization >> >> I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). >> >> In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? >> >> Giles >> >> On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: >> >>> Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another >> network? >>> If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. >>> Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. >>> >>> Linda Dunbar >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf >>>> Of Paul Unbehagen >>>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM >>>> To: Thomas Narten >>>> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >>>> Virtualization >>>> >>>> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially >> L2VPNs. >>>> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could >> also >>>> be considered an overlay over IP. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Paul Unbehagen >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" >>>> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work >>>>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed >>>>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - >>>>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM >>>>>> mobility. >>>>> >>>>> Can you list which drafts these are? >>>>> >>>>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >>>>> >>>>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt >>>>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt >>>>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt >>>>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >>>>> >>>>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? >>>>> >>>>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of >> IP >>>>>> tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group >>>>>> has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all >>>>>> the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC >>>>>> related solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as >>>>>> Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe, maybe not. >>>>> >>>>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the >>>> L2VPN >>>>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, >> you >>>>> have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you >> want >>>>> to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the hosts >>>> that >>>>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, >>>>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames >> are >>>>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as >>>>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >>>>> >>>>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can >>>>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the >>>>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is >> they >>>>> are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >>>>> >>>>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part >> of >>>>> the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the >>>>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the >>>>> hypervisors. >>>>> >>>>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches >>>> and >>>>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they >>>>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the >>>>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. >> They >>>>> just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs >> have >>>> a >>>>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the >>>>> way into switches and hypervisors. >>>>> >>>>> Does this make sense? >>>>> >>>>> Thomas >> > From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Oct 4 11:45:21 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCBB421F8D1F for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:45:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id msFBsDjs2iLX for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC6C21F8D1A for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p94Im9hY009529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:48:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p94Im8Sb008241 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:48:08 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:48:08 -0500 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: Shahram Davari , David Allan I , Giles Heron , Linda Dunbar , Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:48:06 -0500 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AQHMggrhmfy5oZaB5EK0QNUSD9DzmpVrnlyAgAAjroCAAAFegIAAlpzAgAAM2P+AAAItAIAAA9RQgAATCwA= Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58962C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223CEEC90@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:45:21 -0000 Hi Shahram, I think we need some requirements draft driven by Cloud Providers. Let me t= ry to add to your considerations below - see in-line... > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Shahram Davari > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Nart= en > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virt= ualization >=20 > Here is my 2c: >=20 > There is certainly big overlap between data center networking and L2VPN. > However there are also some data center requirements, which I am not sure= is in > the scope of L2VPN WG such as: >=20 > 1) Private IP addresses are OK in data center, since it is confined to a = close > environment If you are talking about private IP addresses in the DC core, that was alwa= ys in scope for all VPN technologies. IP/MPLS core networks use private add= ressing. If you are talking about the VPN IP addressing then the deployed V= PNs are based on allowing this kind of addressing too. Actually that was on= e of the main VPN requirements from the beginning and to allow overlapping = addressing between customers. > 2) Most likely no IPV6 is needed No IPv6 is mandated by existing VPNs although it is supported. I would not = exclude IPv6 support though from the Cloud requirements unless there are go= od reasons behind it. > 3) Scales are much higher than Service Provider networks. For example the= re can be tens of thousands of Top of Rack switches and millions of VPNs There are actually Telco networks that have similar size or up to 100K if y= ou consider also the access switches/DSLAMs. These are usually Metro-WAN-M= etro networks. As to millions of VPNs did you mean millions of VMs? We do h= ave addressing fields that allow for millions of VPNs but in practical sens= e we are right now at or below 4K VLANs and a handful of VR contexts in exi= sting DC networks. It will take a while to get to millions.. it will be goo= d to understand what Cloud Providers expect in medium/long term. > 4) connection Security is not a big concern I thought people care about that everywhere. Do you mean IPSec is not requi= red? > 5) OAM is not a big concern This is very surprising to me. I thought with more tenants being served by = a Cloud Provider there will be a clear need for proper troubleshooting tool= s and SLA reporting. We did extensive work in IETF on that and I think it i= s extensively used by Telcos. > 6) Advanced load balancing is required including L2-L7 We always had ECMP in the IP/MPLS core and also EVPN/PBB-EVPN work is addre= ssing L2-L7 loadbalancing at service level. > 7) Efficient Multicast from multiple members of a multicast group is requ= ired See work on flood containment and Mcast handling in EVPN and PBB/SPB. > 8) Network management does a lot of the control plane functions I agree this is something we did not need up to now in L2VPN although indiv= idual vendor EMS did some control plane functions for VPNs before service A= uto-discovery was introduced. But I don't believe there is anything in the = charter preventing us from doing it. > 9) Core of data center is not MPLS (just IP or Ethernet) We have IP tunnels in scope in L2VPN. In L2VPN we had also PBB interop draf= t which defines interop between native Ethernet tunnels and PBB-VPLS. Same = can be said about PBB-EVPN draft. > 10) Interworking between Data centers is required (may require translatio= n of > VPN identifier from local to global) You mean this is a good argument for keeping the work in L2VPN to make sure= we provide easy mapping of Tenant - WAN VPN ID right? Thanks, Florin >=20 >=20 > Thx > Shahram >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > David Allan I > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:08 AM > To: Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virt= ualization >=20 > I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo.... >=20 > But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other netw= orking > overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying some kind of h= ybrid > network. I do not think that is the design intent of this exercise. This = is a > different technology set that those explored by L2VPN to date extended to= a > vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There is no other Ethernet networki= ng or > emulation in the equation. >=20 > N'est pas? >=20 > That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provider = provisioned > L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy cloud. Many= of > the issues discussed in the problem statement draft explicitly overlap th= e class > of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, particularly w.r.t. multicast... T= he > technologies have been changed to protect the innocent, that's all. >=20 > My 2 cents > D >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Giles Heron > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM > To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virt= ualization >=20 > I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). >=20 > In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? >=20 > Giles >=20 > On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: >=20 > > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another > network? > > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. > > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. > > > > Linda Dunbar > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen > >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM > >> To: Thomas Narten > >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > >> Virtualization > >> > >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. > >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also > >> be considered an overlay over IP. > >> > >> -- > >> Paul Unbehagen > >> > >> > >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > >> > >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" > >> writes: > >>> > >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work > >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed > >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - > >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM > >>>> mobility. > >>> > >>> Can you list which drafts these are? > >>> > >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: > >>> > >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt > >>> > >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? > >>> > >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of > >>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working > >>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing > >>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP > >>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also interoperate with > >>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VP= N > customers. > >>> > >>> Maybe, maybe not. > >>> > >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the > >> L2VPN > >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, > >>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you > >>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the > >>> hosts > >> that > >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, > >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are > >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). > >>> > >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is > >>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor= . > >>> > >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part > >>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > >>> hypervisors. > >>> > >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches > >> and > >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they > >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. > >>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs > >>> have > >> a > >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > >>> way into switches and hypervisors. > >>> > >>> Does this make sense? > >>> > >>> Thomas >=20 >=20 >=20 From ping@pingpan.org Tue Oct 4 12:29:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E3121F8E83 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:29:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.703 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MTsyfKvyuOXM for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 486CB21F8E78 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:32:57 PDT Received: by mail-wy0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 26so1229947wyj.13 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.61.6 with SMTP id r6mr2000597wbh.37.1317756769933; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n21sm6138366wbp.2.2011.10.04.12.32.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eye4 with SMTP id 4so925706eye.31 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.8.21 with SMTP id f21mr1646565ebf.126.1317756766335; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:32:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.33.76 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:32:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58962C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223CEEC90@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58962C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> From: Ping Pan Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 12:32:06 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c3ee6f531da04ae7e27b6 Cc: Thomas Narten , "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:29:53 -0000 --0015174c3ee6f531da04ae7e27b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, I think this set of drafts are very interesting. They are defined with a set of data center applications in mind (and not necessarily with PBB or other Ethernet network operation in mind). Nevertheless the data manipulation defined in the drafts will likely interface with MPLS in many cases. Maybe that's new work which deserves a BOF/WG, maybe that can be combined into L2VPN. In any rate. I think that we should keep an open mind, and hear it first. Personally, I think the work is overlapping with L2VPN's general framework, but I could be wrong... Regards, Ping On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) < florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > > Hi Shahram, > I think we need some requirements draft driven by Cloud Providers. Let me > try to add to your considerations below - see in-line... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > Shahram Davari > > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM > > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas > Narten > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > Virtualization > > > > Here is my 2c: > > > > There is certainly big overlap between data center networking and L2VPN. > > However there are also some data center requirements, which I am not sure > is in > > the scope of L2VPN WG such as: > > > > 1) Private IP addresses are OK in data center, since it is confined to a > close > > environment > > If you are talking about private IP addresses in the DC core, that was > always in scope for all VPN technologies. IP/MPLS core networks use private > addressing. If you are talking about the VPN IP addressing then the deployed > VPNs are based on allowing this kind of addressing too. Actually that was > one of the main VPN requirements from the beginning and to allow overlapping > addressing between customers. > > > 2) Most likely no IPV6 is needed > > No IPv6 is mandated by existing VPNs although it is supported. I would not > exclude IPv6 support though from the Cloud requirements unless there are > good reasons behind it. > > > 3) Scales are much higher than Service Provider networks. For example > there can be tens of thousands of Top of Rack switches and millions of VPNs > > There are actually Telco networks that have similar size or up to 100K if > you consider also the access switches/DSLAMs. These are usually > Metro-WAN-Metro networks. As to millions of VPNs did you mean millions of > VMs? We do have addressing fields that allow for millions of VPNs but in > practical sense we are right now at or below 4K VLANs and a handful of VR > contexts in existing DC networks. It will take a while to get to millions.. > it will be good to understand what Cloud Providers expect in medium/long > term. > > > 4) connection Security is not a big concern > I thought people care about that everywhere. Do you mean IPSec is not > required? > > > 5) OAM is not a big concern > This is very surprising to me. I thought with more tenants being served by > a Cloud Provider there will be a clear need for proper troubleshooting tools > and SLA reporting. We did extensive work in IETF on that and I think it is > extensively used by Telcos. > > > 6) Advanced load balancing is required including L2-L7 > We always had ECMP in the IP/MPLS core and also EVPN/PBB-EVPN work is > addressing L2-L7 loadbalancing at service level. > > > 7) Efficient Multicast from multiple members of a multicast group is > required > See work on flood containment and Mcast handling in EVPN and PBB/SPB. > > > 8) Network management does a lot of the control plane functions > > I agree this is something we did not need up to now in L2VPN although > individual vendor EMS did some control plane functions for VPNs before > service Auto-discovery was introduced. But I don't believe there is anything > in the charter preventing us from doing it. > > > 9) Core of data center is not MPLS (just IP or Ethernet) > > We have IP tunnels in scope in L2VPN. In L2VPN we had also PBB interop > draft which defines interop between native Ethernet tunnels and PBB-VPLS. > Same can be said about PBB-EVPN draft. > > > 10) Interworking between Data centers is required (may require > translation of > > VPN identifier from local to global) > > You mean this is a good argument for keeping the work in L2VPN to make sure > we provide easy mapping of Tenant - WAN VPN ID right? > > Thanks, > Florin > > > > > > Thx > > Shahram > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > David Allan I > > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:08 AM > > To: Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > Virtualization > > > > I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo.... > > > > But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other > networking > > overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying some kind of > hybrid > > network. I do not think that is the design intent of this exercise. This > is a > > different technology set that those explored by L2VPN to date extended to > a > > vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There is no other Ethernet > networking or > > emulation in the equation. > > > > N'est pas? > > > > That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provider > provisioned > > L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy cloud. Many > of > > the issues discussed in the problem statement draft explicitly overlap > the class > > of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, particularly w.r.t. multicast... > The > > technologies have been changed to protect the innocent, that's all. > > > > My 2 cents > > D > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > Giles Heron > > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM > > To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > Virtualization > > > > I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). > > > > In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? > > > > Giles > > > > On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > > > > > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another > > network? > > > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. > > > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. > > > > > > Linda Dunbar > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > >> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen > > >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM > > >> To: Thomas Narten > > >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > > >> Virtualization > > >> > > >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. > > >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also > > >> be considered an overlay over IP. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Paul Unbehagen > > >> > > >> > > >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > >> > > >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" > > >> writes: > > >>> > > >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work > > >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed > > >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - > > >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM > > >>>> mobility. > > >>> > > >>> Can you list which drafts these are? > > >>> > > >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: > > >>> > > >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > > >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt > > >>> > > >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? > > >>> > > >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of > > >>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working > > >>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing > > >>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP > > >>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also interoperate with > > >>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to > VPN > > customers. > > >>> > > >>> Maybe, maybe not. > > >>> > > >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the > > >> L2VPN > > >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, > > >>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you > > >>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the > > >>> hosts > > >> that > > >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, > > >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are > > >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > > >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). > > >>> > > >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > > >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > > >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is > > >>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a > providor. > > >>> > > >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part > > >>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > > >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > > >>> hypervisors. > > >>> > > >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches > > >> and > > >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they > > >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > > >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. > > >>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs > > >>> have > > >> a > > >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > > >>> way into switches and hypervisors. > > >>> > > >>> Does this make sense? > > >>> > > >>> Thomas > > > > > > > > --0015174c3ee6f531da04ae7e27b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

I think this set of drafts are very interesting. The= y are defined with a set of data center applications in mind (and not=C2=A0= necessarily=C2=A0with PBB or other Ethernet network operation in mind).=C2= =A0Nevertheless=C2=A0 the data manipulation defined in the drafts will like= ly interface with MPLS in many cases.

Maybe that's new work which deserves a BOF/WG, mayb= e that can be combined into L2VPN. In any rate. I think that we should keep= an open mind, and hear it first. Personally, I think the work is overlappi= ng with L2VPN's general framework, but I could be wrong...

Regards,

Ping



On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Balus, = Florin Stelian (Florin) <florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:=

Hi Shahram,
I think we need some requirements draft driven by Cloud Providers. Let me t= ry to add to your considerations below - see in-line...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.o= rg] On Behalf Of
> Shahram Davari
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM
> To: David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas N= arten
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org=
> Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 V= irtualization
>
> Here is my 2c:
>
> There is certainly big overlap between data center networking and L2VP= N.
> However there are also some data center requirements, which I am not s= ure is in
> the scope of L2VPN WG such as:
>
> 1) Private IP addresses are OK in data center, since it is confined to= a close
> environment

If you are talking about private IP addresses in the DC core, that wa= s always in scope for all VPN technologies. IP/MPLS core networks use priva= te addressing. If you are talking about the VPN IP addressing then the depl= oyed VPNs are based on allowing this kind of addressing too. Actually that = was one of the main VPN requirements from the beginning and to allow overla= pping addressing between customers.

> 2) Most likely no IPV6 is needed

No IPv6 is mandated by existing VPNs although it is supported. I woul= d not exclude IPv6 support though from the Cloud requirements unless there = are good reasons behind it.

> 3) Scales are much higher than Service Provider networks. For example = there can be tens of thousands of Top of Rack switches and millions of VPNs=

There are actually Telco networks that have similar size or up to 100= K if you consider also the access switches/DSLAMs. These are usually =C2=A0= Metro-WAN-Metro networks. As to millions of VPNs did you mean millions of V= Ms? We do have addressing fields that allow for millions of VPNs but in pra= ctical sense we are right now at or below 4K VLANs and a handful of VR cont= exts in existing DC networks. It will take a while to get to millions.. it = will be good to understand what Cloud Providers expect in medium/long term.=

> 4) connection Security is not a big concern
I thought people care about that everywhere. Do you mean IPSec is not= required?

> 5) OAM is not a big concern
This is very surprising to me. I thought with more tenants being serv= ed by a Cloud Provider there will be a clear need for proper troubleshootin= g tools and SLA reporting. We did extensive work in IETF on that and I thin= k it is extensively used by Telcos.

> 6) Advanced load balancing is required including L2-L7
We always had ECMP in the IP/MPLS core and also EVPN/PBB-EVPN work is= addressing L2-L7 loadbalancing at service level.

> 7) Efficient Multicast from multiple members of a multicast group is r= equired
See work on flood containment and Mcast handling in EVPN and PBB/SPB.=

> 8) Network management does a lot of the control plane functions

I agree this is something we did not need up to now in L2VPN although= individual vendor EMS did some control plane functions for VPNs before ser= vice Auto-discovery was introduced. But I don't believe there is anythi= ng in the charter preventing us from doing it.

> 9) Core of data center is not MPLS (just IP or Ethernet)

We have IP tunnels in scope in L2VPN. In L2VPN we had also PBB intero= p draft which defines interop between native Ethernet tunnels and PBB-VPLS.= Same can be said about PBB-EVPN draft.

> 10) Interworking between Data centers is required (may require transla= tion of
> VPN identifier from local to global)

You mean this is a good argument for keeping the work in L2VPN to mak= e sure we provide easy mapping of Tenant - WAN VPN ID right?

Thanks,
Florin
>
>
> Thx
> Shahram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.o= rg] On Behalf Of
> David Allan I
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:08 AM
> To: Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 V= irtualization
>
> I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo....
>
> But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other n= etworking
> overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying some kind o= f hybrid
> network. I do not think that is the design intent of this exercise. Th= is is a
> different technology set that those explored by L2VPN to date extended= to a
> vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There is no other Ethernet netwo= rking or
> emulation in the equation.
>
> N'est pas?
>
> That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provid= er provisioned
> L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy cloud. M= any of
> the issues discussed in the problem statement draft explicitly overlap= the class
> of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, particularly w.r.t. multicast..= . The
> technologies have been changed to protect the innocent, that's all= .
>
> My 2 cents
> D
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.o= rg] On Behalf Of
> Giles Heron
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM
> To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 V= irtualization
>
> I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer= 3).
>
> In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right?
>
> Giles
>
> On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by ano= ther
> network?
> > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion.
> > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition.
> >
> > Linda Dunbar
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: l2vpn-bounces= @ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounc= es@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen
> >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM
> >> To: Thomas Narten
> >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to pro= vide L2
> >> Virtualization
> >>
> >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentiall= y L2VPNs.
> >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS co= uld also
> >> be considered an overlay over IP.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul Unbehagen
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" <florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com>
> >> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to in= clude work
> >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number o= f proposed
> >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted t= he change -
> >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions= ) and VM
> >>>> mobility.
> >>>
> >>> Can you list which drafts these are?
> >>>
> >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be:
> >>>
> >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt
> >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt
> >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt
> >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt
> >>>
> >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility?
> >>>
> >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over = some sort of
> >>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and th= e working
> >>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opini= on dealing
> >>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including = L2/IP
> >>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also inter= operate with
> >>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud= Services to VPN
> customers.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe, maybe not.
> >>>
> >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is t= hat the
> >> L2VPN
> >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. = That is,
> >>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sit= es, and you
> >>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN = (to the
> >>> hosts
> >> that
> >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network= as before,
> >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2= frames are
> >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN = as
> >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.).
> >>>
> >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an ove= rlay can
> >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend ou= tside the
> >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assump= tion is
> >>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, no= t a providor.
> >>>
> >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itsel= f is part
> >>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere w= ithin the
> >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switch= es and the
> >>> hypervisors.
> >>>
> >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" dev= ices (i.e, switches
> >> and
> >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While the= y
> >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches i= n the
> >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destina= tion state.
> >>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2V= P approachs
> >>> have
> >> a
> >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to = go all the
> >>> way into switches and hypervisors.
> >>>
> >>> Does this make sense?
> >>>
> >>> Thomas
>
>
>


--0015174c3ee6f531da04ae7e27b6-- From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Oct 4 13:10:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C0021F8EE0 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:10:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.708 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.708 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.226, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SN4YMPnU7HjT for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F5921F8EC2 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p94KD1jd001799 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:13:03 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:13:02 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Shahram Davari , David Allan I , Giles Heron , Linda Dunbar , Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:13:01 +0200 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AQHMggrhmfy5oZaB5EK0QNUSD9DzmpVrnlyAgAAjroCAAAFegIAAlpzAgAAM2P+AAAItAIAAA9RQgAAZSvA= Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671AD36B98@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223CEEC90@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:10:23 -0000 In-line with WH> -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of S= hahram Davari Sent: dinsdag 4 oktober 2011 19:26 To: David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtua= lization Here is my 2c: There is certainly big overlap between data center networking and L2VPN. Ho= wever there are also some data center requirements, which I am not sure is = in the scope of L2VPN WG such as: 1) Private IP addresses are OK in data center, since it is confined to a cl= ose environment WH> same for L2VPN 2) Most likely no IPV6 is needed=20 3) Scales are much higher than Service Provider networks. For example there= can be tens of thousands of Top of Rack switches and millions of VPNs WH> L2VPN solutions support this scale 4) connection Security is not a big concern 5) OAM is not a big concern=20 6) Advanced load balancing is required including L2-L7=20 WH> addressed with some solution in L2VPN today like MAC-VPN/E-VPN and PBB = E-VPN 7) Efficient Multicast from multiple members of a multicast group is requir= ed WH> addressed with some solution in L2VPN today like MAC-VPN/E-VPN and PBB = E-VPN 8) Network management does a lot of the control plane functions WH> you can perform functions in network management also with the L2VPn sol= utions 9) Core of data center is not MPLS (just IP or Ethernet) WH> IP or MPLS is support in L2VPn and they both run over Ethernet 10) Interworking between Data centers is required (may require translation = of VPN identifier from local to global) WH> also being addresses using Inter-AS options WH> so from this list I still believe L2VPN is the right place to discuss t= his. Thx Shahram -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of D= avid Allan I Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:08 AM To: Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtua= lization I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo.... But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other networ= king overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying some kind o= f hybrid network. I do not think that is the design intent of this exercise= . This is a different technology set that those explored by L2VPN to date e= xtended to a vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There is no other Ethern= et networking or emulation in the equation. N'est pas? That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provider pr= ovisioned L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy clo= ud. Many of the issues discussed in the problem statement draft explicitly = overlap the class of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, particularly w.r.t= . multicast... The technologies have been changed to protect the innocent, = that's all. My 2 cents D=20 -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtua= lization I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? Giles On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another net= work? > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. >=20 > Linda Dunbar >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 >> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM >> To: Thomas Narten >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2=20 >> Virtualization >>=20 >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also=20 >> be considered an overlay over IP. >>=20 >> -- >> Paul Unbehagen >>=20 >>=20 >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >>=20 >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" >> writes: >>>=20 >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work=20 >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed=20 >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change -=20 >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM=20 >>>> mobility. >>>=20 >>> Can you list which drafts these are? >>>=20 >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >>>=20 >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >>>=20 >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? >>>=20 >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of=20 >>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working=20 >>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing=20 >>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP=20 >>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also interoperate with=20 >>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN = customers. >>>=20 >>> Maybe, maybe not. >>>=20 >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the >> L2VPN >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is,=20 >>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you=20 >>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the=20 >>> hosts >> that >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before,=20 >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are=20 >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as=20 >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >>>=20 >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can=20 >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the=20 >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is=20 >>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >>>=20 >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part=20 >>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the=20 >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the=20 >>> hypervisors. >>>=20 >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches >> and >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they=20 >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the=20 >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state.=20 >>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs=20 >>> have >> a >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the=20 >>> way into switches and hypervisors. >>>=20 >>> Does this make sense? >>>=20 >>> Thomas From marshall.eubanks@gmail.com Tue Oct 4 13:19:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4A721F8CF0 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:19:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8SjksMv4HHn3 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FAE21F8CEF for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywm3 with SMTP id 3so1052854ywm.31 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:22:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=jdvu+dJ3iVzkyL6ZpxUa5aRry65+OLvEMZ0toNqfc2Y=; b=AVeiGtzG041ydgVWTMe6u5eLtDlhmqD7mdrCxTdC5nXRmDcQ5OgGgaCa4bZVR5I4W6 j5QcyIHmCdsBGJ1YJRQafqAi3B8USph5T0gHrYEIvypAv7ZjmGmSS8Q/Jln7QCPtAqxY /Rmhxl+zTtqE2ucjCbl60ub1gW2PA5Gtpjy9o= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.73.31 with SMTP id v31mr1640297yba.26.1317759770109; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.98.20 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:22:50 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: L3VPN meeting in Taipei RE VPN4DC From: Marshall Eubanks To: l2vpn@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:19:48 -0000 Hello; I am forwarding this to L2VPN, as there might be people interested in VPN4DC here. Please, if you are interested, carry the discussion forward on the L3VPN ML. ------ Stewart Bryant has requested that we hold an L3VPN meeting at IETF 82 to consider and discuss VPN4DC. Specifically, we would "need to emerge understanding the problem, the usage, the requirements, and the necessary charter changes." This would be preparation for VPN4DC becoming a BOF. Some requirements for this meeting : The problem needs to be discussed on the L3VPN list. There needs to be viable -00 drafts submitted to L3VPN before the cutoff. Luyuan Fang has promised a draft before the cutoff. If there is not significant discussion on this issue, the session is likely to be canceled. Again, please keep discussion of VPN4DC on the L3VPN list. Regards Marshall From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Tue Oct 4 14:34:01 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2980121F8E27 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:34:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.752 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s0vUPVsqqa0X for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe01.verizon.com (fldsmtpe01.verizon.com [140.108.26.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBBB21F8E2B for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:33:59 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2011 21:37:04 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,487,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="151783660" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb03.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.86]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2011 21:37:04 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.3.30]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.86]) with mapi; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:37:04 -0400 To: Shahram Davari , David Allan I , Giles Heron , Linda Dunbar , Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:36:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AcyC3cFxHqY5dmcXTqOcPuKNTPtCPw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:34:01 -0000 Hi Sharam, Please see inline as a contributor opinion. Thanks, Nabil On 10/4/11 1:25 PM, "Shahram Davari" wrote: >Here is my 2c: > >There is certainly big overlap between data center networking and L2VPN. >However there are also some data center requirements, which I am not sure >is in the scope of L2VPN WG such as: Maybe, but I think what is not in scope or cannot be in scope would need to be identified. > >1) Private IP addresses are OK in data center, since it is confined to a >close environment I am not sure whose IP addresses are being referred to. However, that is assumed in all cases. If a customer connects to an L2VPN, they may be using private or public IP addresses. There is nothing that restricts this addressing one way or the other. >2) Most likely no IPV6 is needed Why would that assumption be made? I think it is safe to assume that if the data center will be serving public customers or serving enterprises, it would need to support IPv6. >=20 >3) Scales are much higher than Service Provider networks. For example >there can be tens of thousands of Top of Rack switches and millions of >VPNs Data center driven requirements from scale aspect, resiliency or network efficiency and solutions to address them are in scope of the l2vpn WG. >4) connection Security is not a big concern ? >=20 >5) OAM is not a big concern why would one think so, and OAM for what is not a concern. >=20 >6) Advanced load balancing is required including L2-L7 Load-balancing is factored in as far ECMP etc., but I am not sure for data path perspective, why you would be concerned about application layer load-balancing >=20 >7) Efficient Multicast from multiple members of a multicast group is >required This pertains to both L2 and L3 and L2VPN and L3VPN address that and if something is identified as lacking, then it should be addressed >8) Network management does a lot of the control plane functions >9) Core of data center is not MPLS (just IP or Ethernet) IP-only PSN is within scope >10) Interworking between Data centers is required (may require >translation of VPN identifier from local to global) > > >Thx >Shahram > >-----Original Message----- >From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >David Allan I >Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:08 AM >To: Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten >Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >Virtualization > >I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo.... > >But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other >networking overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying >some kind of hybrid network. I do not think that is the design intent of >this exercise. This is a different technology set that those explored by >L2VPN to date extended to a vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There >is no other Ethernet networking or emulation in the equation. > >N'est pas? > >That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provider >provisioned L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy >cloud. Many of the issues discussed in the problem statement draft >explicitly overlap the class of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, >particularly w.r.t. multicast... The technologies have been changed to >protect the innocent, that's all. > >My 2 cents >D=20 > >-----Original Message----- >From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Giles Heron >Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM >To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten >Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >Virtualization > >I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). > >In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? > >Giles > >On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > >> Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another >>network? >> If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. >> Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. >>=20 >> Linda Dunbar >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen >>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM >>> To: Thomas Narten >>> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >>> Virtualization >>>=20 >>> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. >>> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also >>> be considered an overlay over IP. >>>=20 >>> -- >>> Paul Unbehagen >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >>>=20 >>>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" >>> writes: >>>>=20 >>>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work >>>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed >>>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - >>>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM >>>>> mobility. >>>>=20 >>>> Can you list which drafts these are? >>>>=20 >>>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >>>>=20 >>>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt >>>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt >>>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt >>>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >>>>=20 >>>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? >>>>=20 >>>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of >>>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working >>>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing >>>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP >>>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also interoperate with >>>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to >>>>>VPN customers. >>>>=20 >>>> Maybe, maybe not. >>>>=20 >>>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the >>> L2VPN >>>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, >>>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you >>>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the >>>> hosts >>> that >>>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, >>>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are >>>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as >>>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >>>>=20 >>>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can >>>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the >>>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is >>>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >>>>=20 >>>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part >>>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the >>>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the >>>> hypervisors. >>>>=20 >>>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches >>> and >>>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they >>>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the >>>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. >>>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs >>>> have >>> a >>>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the >>>> way into switches and hypervisors. >>>>=20 >>>> Does this make sense? >>>>=20 >>>> Thomas > > > > From vantonder.renier@gmail.com Tue Oct 4 22:57:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F23C21F85AA for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NxVJDQTrXAzB for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8C921F8569 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so1291531vcb.31 for ; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:00:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YFK4UZ+ZwIvniC+0NKMFV2YGD6jcDih/yJAltPBvH+c=; b=HrgE8gf/yHD8BGb3JGOEv86hzOLz9PGo0Mjs1UO1YCIUf+LFzrV8UFn7/xguKrlYa9 tLy6ROJsAZQheKYmuUu2qnWAyZtl0s6FXGuy2TpEBXx65mwKuMi4IyFhltcCzjkB9D7/ oI8uyWWWY4HKeL3Nh1MEgLOlqy45BkcdfOkFU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.6.212 with SMTP id a20mr577405vca.73.1317794412954; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.182.132 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:00:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 08:00:12 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization From: renier van tonder To: Thomas Narten Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0022152d6a71df058d04ae86ebc2 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:57:07 -0000 --0022152d6a71df058d04ae86ebc2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Gents and/or Ladies I beg you please remove me from your mailing list. I have NO idea how I got on to it in the first place!! Thank you kindly vantonder.renier@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > FYI. It has been suggested that this work area overlaps with L2VPN's > charter. That was not my starting point, but I also haven't followed > this WG in recent years. > > In any case, I'd welcome feedback and a sense for whether this is > in-scope for this WG. > > Thomas > > ------- Forwarded Message > > From: Thomas Narten > To: ietf@ietf.org > Cc: nvo3@ietf.org > Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:03:34 -0400 > Subject: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > Virtualization > > A new mailing list has been set up to explore possible IETF work in > the area of providing L2 network virtualization service over an L3 > (IP) overlay network. > > As background, there are a number of drafts that relate to this area, > including: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility-00 > > I've put together a first-cut at a problem statement that focuses on > the issues and potential work areas, without getting into solution > specifics. See: > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-00.txt > > There have also been some related vendor announcements and > presentations as well (these are ones I happen to know of, there are > surely others). For example: > > http://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/introducing-vxlan/ > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/white_paper_c11-685115.html > > > http://blogs.vmware.com/console/2011/08/towards-virtualized-networking-for-the-cloud.html > > http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/SAC-442T > > The list is called nvo3, for "Network Virtualization Over L3", aka > N-Vee-Oh-3 (we'll see how well that acronym sticks...). > > I've put in a formal request to hold a BOF in Taipai, so we can > explore whether it makes sense to form a WG in this area. > > Subscription information for the mailing list can be found at > > List address: nvo3@ietf.org > Archive: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/maillist.html > To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > I look forward to your participation! > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > --0022152d6a71df058d04ae86ebc2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gents and/or Ladies

I beg you please remove me from your mailing lis= t. I have NO idea how I got on to it in the first place!!

Thank you = kindly

vantonder.renie= r@gmail.com

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Thomas Nart= en <narten@us.ibm= .com> wrote:
FYI. It has been suggested that this work area overlaps with L2VPN's charter. That was not my starting point, but I also haven't followed this WG in recent years.

In any case, I'd welcome feedback and a sense for whether this is
in-scope for this WG.

Thomas

------- Forwarded Message

From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.= com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:03:34 -0400
Subject: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualiza= tion

A new mailing list has been set up to explore possible IETF work in
the area of providing L2 network virtualization service over an L3
(IP) overlay network.

As background, there are a number of drafts that relate to this area,
including:

=A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt= -dcops-vxlan-00
=A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridharan-vi= rtualization-nvgre-00
=A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dcops-l= 3-vmmobility-00

I've put together a first-cut at a problem statement that focuses on the issues and potential work areas, without getting into solution
specifics. =A0See:

=A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-n= arten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-00.txt

There have also been some related vendor announcements and
presentations as well (these are ones I happen to know of, there are
surely others). For example:

=A0 =A0 http://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/introducing-vxlan/
=A0 =A0 http://www.cisco.= com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/white_paper_c11-685115.htm= l

=A0 =A0 http://blogs.vmware.c= om/console/2011/08/towards-virtualized-networking-for-the-cloud.html
=A0 =A0 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/SAC-44= 2T

The list is called nvo3, for "Network Virtualization Over L3", ak= a
N-Vee-Oh-3 (we'll see how well that acronym sticks...).

I've put in a formal request to hold a BOF in Taipai, so we can
explore whether it makes sense to form a WG in this area.

Subscription information for the mailing list can be found at

=A0 =A0 List address: nvo3@ietf.org =A0 =A0 Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/n= vo3/current/maillist.html
=A0 =A0 To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3

I look forward to your participation!

Thomas

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

------- End of Forwarded Message

--0022152d6a71df058d04ae86ebc2-- From lucy.yong@huawei.com Wed Oct 5 09:29:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A66811E8085 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:29:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id epRRk-E+Bs-G for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8C911E808F for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSL00JFTPZ1LH@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:33:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.4.104]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSL00DPGPZ1BF@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:33:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:33:02 -0700 Received: from DFWEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.111]) by DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:32:53 -0700 Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:32:53 +0000 From: Lucy yong Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.192.11.127] To: Giles Heron Message-id: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D118C0FAF@dfweml506-mbx> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US Thread-topic: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-index: Acx+3olnBdW6oUmrHUWspYzlTDElSgEndBDw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:29:55 -0000 Yes/support Lucy -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 2:33 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by March 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. Thanks! Nabil & Giles From vishwas.ietf@gmail.com Wed Oct 5 14:23:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA261F0C8B for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:23:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.308 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A45V77nAYM0Y for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361DB1F0C5F for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk33 with SMTP id 33so1863794qyk.10 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:26:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jdWa5oK4GCY+kIQ6D2UMp59tsKxvy1nMXr5YPzix5wU=; b=ioWG43Gl1zYByz29DdzzQGJwBsP+wGxjHUmduhKJgXLkmb7DrsWfNxRi7yquojNX5v 7mGVKRq4no1cQFj0jB8mING9lZIp7n/H6DddHknkSB+eCKT1A8xQiZSK4/OC+jEyIxi3 o4fPk+AELjZYIghtq+O7HAXgMuk4czA2+dDkc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.37.84 with SMTP id w20mr2330568qcd.76.1317850007548; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:26:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.91.131 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:26:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201110032026.p93KQWVB007937@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58943E@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:26:47 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization From: Vishwas Manral To: Benson Schliesser Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163649a72791334604ae93dde5 Cc: Thomas Narten , l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:23:41 -0000 --00163649a72791334604ae93dde5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, I agree with Benson here. A big difference is L2VPN focuses on "provider provisioned" which may not be what the NVO3 may be focussed on. With that said however I guess because there are similarities, the way to look at it would be, to see if there is interest in the group, the right folks are part of the L2VPN group, the chair's/ AD's are willing to take up the task and other similar questions. Thanks, Vishwas On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > I don't disagree with Florin's comments, but I'm not certain the NVO3 > initiative is best-served within L2VPN's scope. The L2VPN charter says that > "Layer-2 VPNs comprise" an enumerated list of topics. While there may be > overlap, it seems that NVO3 would deal with a somewhat new topic. Whether > this is best done through a re-charter of L2VPN or establishment of a new > WG, is not clear to me - but for the sake of argument here are a couple > considerations: > > For starters, the current L2VPN charter focuses on "provider-provisioned" > which may not apply to NVO3. This is admittedly a vague line of division, > but it may be useful in thinking about the distinction between these areas > of work. > > More specifically, while NVO3 solutions might emulate native L2 service, > they may in fact be significantly different in capability and operation. > I'd suggest that, for example, the mechanisms by which address resolution > happen might be very different - both within an overlay, as well as between > the overlay and underlying PSN. This might constrain the types of traffic > that can be carried by the overlay. Or maybe not. This is something that > NVO3 would need to investigate. > > Cheers, > -Benson > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) wrote: > > > Thomas, > > > > The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work related > to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed requirements and > solution initiatives that prompted the change - see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN > (requirements, solutions) and VM mobility. > > > > The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of IP > tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group has > accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all the > VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC related > solutions need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as Cloud Provider > want to deliver Cloud Services to VPN customers. > > > > So I think these initiatives are in L2VPN scope and should be discussed > here to better understand what are the deltas from existing VPN > technologies. > > > > Florin > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas Narten > > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 1:27 PM > > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: FWD: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > Virtualization > > > > FYI. It has been suggested that this work area overlaps with L2VPN's > > charter. That was not my starting point, but I also haven't followed > > this WG in recent years. > > > > In any case, I'd welcome feedback and a sense for whether this is > > in-scope for this WG. > > > > Thomas > > > > ------- Forwarded Message > > > > From: Thomas Narten > > To: ietf@ietf.org > > Cc: nvo3@ietf.org > > Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:03:34 -0400 > > Subject: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > Virtualization > > > > A new mailing list has been set up to explore possible IETF work in > > the area of providing L2 network virtualization service over an L3 > > (IP) overlay network. > > > > As background, there are a number of drafts that relate to this area, > > including: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00 > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-00 > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility-00 > > > > I've put together a first-cut at a problem statement that focuses on > > the issues and potential work areas, without getting into solution > > specifics. See: > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-00.txt > > > > There have also been some related vendor announcements and > > presentations as well (these are ones I happen to know of, there are > > surely others). For example: > > > > http://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/introducing-vxlan/ > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/white_paper_c11-685115.html > > > > > http://blogs.vmware.com/console/2011/08/towards-virtualized-networking-for-the-cloud.html > > > > http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/SAC-442T > > > > The list is called nvo3, for "Network Virtualization Over L3", aka > > N-Vee-Oh-3 (we'll see how well that acronym sticks...). > > > > I've put in a formal request to hold a BOF in Taipai, so we can > > explore whether it makes sense to form a WG in this area. > > > > Subscription information for the mailing list can be found at > > > > List address: nvo3@ietf.org > > Archive: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/maillist.html > > To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > > > I look forward to your participation! > > > > Thomas > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > > --00163649a72791334604ae93dde5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
=A0
I agree with Benson here. A big difference is L2VPN focuses on "p= rovider provisioned" which may not be what the NVO3 may be focussed on= .
=A0
With that said however I guess because there are similarities, the way= to look at it would be, to see if there is interest in the group, the=A0ri= ght folks are part of the L2VPN group, the chair's/ AD's are willin= g to take up the task and other similar questions.
=A0
Thanks,
Vishwas
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Benson Schliesse= r <bschlies@cisc= o.com> wrote:
I don't disagree with Florin= 's comments, but I'm not certain the NVO3 initiative is best-served= within L2VPN's scope. The L2VPN charter says that "Layer-2 VPNs c= omprise" an enumerated list of topics. While there may be overlap, it = seems that NVO3 would deal with a somewhat new topic. =A0Whether this is be= st done through a re-charter of L2VPN or establishment of a new WG, is not = clear to me - but for the sake of argument here are a couple considerations= :

For starters, the current L2VPN charter focuses on "provider-provi= sioned" which may not apply to NVO3. =A0This is admittedly a vague lin= e of division, but it may be useful in thinking about the distinction betwe= en these areas of work.

More specifically, while NVO3 solutions might emulate native L2 service= , they may in fact be significantly different in capability and operation. = =A0I'd suggest that, for example, the mechanisms by which address resol= ution happen might be very different - both within an overlay, as well as b= etween the overlay and underlying PSN. This might constrain the types of tr= affic that can be carried by the overlay. Or maybe not. This is something t= hat NVO3 would need to investigate.

Cheers,
-Benson


On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Balus, Florin Stelian= (Florin) wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> The L2VPN charter was = modified a few months ago to include work related to DC/Cloud networking. T= here were a number of proposed requirements and solution initiatives that p= rompted the change - see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions)= and VM mobility.
>
> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort= of IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working group ha= s accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing with all the VPN/mu= lti-tenancy components, including L2/IP solution. Any DC related solutions = need to also interoperate with existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deli= ver Cloud Services to VPN customers.
>
> So I think these initiatives are in L2VPN scope and should be = discussed here to better understand what are the deltas from existing VPN t= echnologies.
>
> Florin
>
> -----Original Message--= ---
> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.o= rg] On Behalf Of Thomas Narten
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 1= :27 PM
> To: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subje= ct: FWD: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualiza= tion
>
> FYI. It has been suggested that this work area overlap= s with L2VPN's
> charter. That was not my starting point, but I also haven't follow= ed
> this WG in recent years.
>
> In any case, I'd we= lcome feedback and a sense for whether this is
> in-scope for this WG= .
>
> Thomas
>
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
&g= t; From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.i= bm.com>
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: nvo3@ietf.org
> Date: F= ri, 30 Sep 2011 20:03:34 -0400
> Subject: Call for Participation: Usi= ng IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization
>
> A new mailing l= ist has been set up to explore possible IETF work in
> the area of providing L2 network virtualization service over an L3
= > (IP) overlay network.
>
> As background, there are a numbe= r of drafts that relate to this area,
> including:
>
> = =A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-= dcops-vxlan-00
> =A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridhara= n-virtualization-nvgre-00
> =A0 =A0http://tool= s.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility-00
>
> I've put together a first-cut at a problem statement that = focuses on
> the issues and potential work areas, without getting int= o solution
> specifics. =A0See:
>
> =A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-pro= blem-statement-00.txt
>
> There have also been some related vendor announcements and
= > presentations as well (these are ones I happen to know of, there are> surely others). For example:
>
> =A0 =A0 http://= blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/introducing-vxlan/
>
> =A0 =A0 http:= //www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/white_paper_c1= 1-685115.html
>
> =A0 =A0 http://bl= ogs.vmware.com/console/2011/08/towards-virtualized-networking-for-the-cloud= .html
>
> =A0 =A0 http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUIL= D2011/SAC-442T
>
> The list is called nvo3, for "Netwo= rk Virtualization Over L3", aka
> N-Vee-Oh-3 (we'll see how well that acronym sticks...).
>> I've put in a formal request to hold a BOF in Taipai, so we can> explore whether it makes sense to form a WG in this area.
> > Subscription information for the mailing list can be found at
><= br>> =A0 =A0 List address: nvo3@ietf.or= g
> =A0 =A0 Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-= archive/web/nvo3/current/maillist.html
> =A0 =A0 To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
= >
> I look forward to your participation!
>
> Thomas>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing l= ist
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https:= //www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message


--00163649a72791334604ae93dde5-- From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Fri Oct 7 07:56:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E53E21F8678 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:56:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.224 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.375, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dciVFloKUSCn for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8033521F85F7 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.100.68.205] (unknown [141.202.11.155]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67121EB1981 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:40:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Nadeau Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Software Defined Networks (SDN) BoF in Taipei Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 10:40:21 -0400 Message-Id: <2FCA3BB3-5CB9-491D-A960-57CDCE5F4F86@lucidvision.com> To: l2vpn@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:56:59 -0000 I wanted to pass on some information regarding a BoF that is = planned for Taipei that is relevant to=20 participants of this mailing list/WG area. =20 The IAB and IESG met today to discuss BoFs for Taipei and agreed = that we will hold a BoF SDN with a goal of "discussing the technology and identifying work = items". The BoF is nominally=20 in the Routing Area, but we expect considerable involvement from the OPS = Area as well.=20 The following is a link to the drafts and other documentation = around the SDN effort including some presentations, and a link to join the BoF mailing list.=20= =09 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ We encourage you to join the list, review the materials and = participate on the mailing list as well as come to the BoF if you have an interest in this work. --Tom From davari@broadcom.com Fri Oct 7 09:42:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA0B621F8C44 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:42:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.798, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dys4K-pZsWZL for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mms1.broadcom.com (mms1.broadcom.com [216.31.210.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B838E21F8C31 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.192.224] by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:52:25 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 02CED230-5797-4B57-9875-D5D2FEE4708A Received: from SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.130]) by SJEXCHHUB01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.224]) with mapi; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:45:25 -0700 From: "Shahram Davari" To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" , "David Allan I" , "Giles Heron" , "Linda Dunbar" , "Paul Unbehagen" , "Thomas Narten" Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:45:20 -0700 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AQHMggrhmfy5oZaB5EK0QNUSD9DzmpVrnlyAgAAjroCAAAFegIAAlpzAgAAM2P+AAAItAIAAA9RQgAATCwCABJoG8A== Message-ID: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA9583D07@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223CEEC90@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58962C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58962C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6291F1C33JW2438420-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:42:25 -0000 Hi Florin, -----Original Message----- From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.co= m]=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:48 AM To: Shahram Davari; David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehage= n; Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtua= lization Hi Shahram, I think we need some requirements draft driven by Cloud Providers. Let me t= ry to add to your considerations below - see in-line... > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Shahram Davari > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Nart= en > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virt= ualization >=20 > Here is my 2c: >=20 > There is certainly big overlap between data center networking and L2VPN. > However there are also some data center requirements, which I am not sure= is in > the scope of L2VPN WG such as: >=20 > 1) Private IP addresses are OK in data center, since it is confined to a = close > environment If you are talking about private IP addresses in the DC core, that was alwa= ys in scope for all VPN technologies. IP/MPLS core networks use private add= ressing. If you are talking about the VPN IP addressing then the deployed V= PNs are based on allowing this kind of addressing too. Actually that was on= e of the main VPN requirements from the beginning and to allow overlapping = addressing between customers. SD> I was talking about the private IP address for the routers in the DC co= re. I don't think private IP address is allowed for Service Provider core. > 2) Most likely no IPV6 is needed No IPv6 is mandated by existing VPNs although it is supported. I would not = exclude IPv6 support though from the Cloud requirements unless there are go= od reasons behind it. SD> Inside a data-center there is no need to have IPV6 address since the IP= addresses are local to the Data center. Off course IPv6 may be needed when= sending packets out of a data center, but that can be done via a Gateway r= outer. > 3) Scales are much higher than Service Provider networks. For example the= re can be tens of thousands of Top of Rack switches and millions of VPNs There are actually Telco networks that have similar size or up to 100K if y= ou consider also the access switches/DSLAMs. These are usually Metro-WAN-M= etro networks. As to millions of VPNs did you mean millions of VMs? We do h= ave addressing fields that allow for millions of VPNs but in practical sens= e we are right now at or below 4K VLANs and a handful of VR contexts in exi= sting DC networks. It will take a while to get to millions.. it will be goo= d to understand what Cloud Providers expect in medium/long term. SD> I meant million VPN and more VMs. I am not aware of any SP network that= requires a heterogeneous connectivity between so many PEs are VPNs.=20 > 4) connection Security is not a big concern I thought people care about that everywhere. Do you mean IPSec is not requi= red? SD> Inside a DC there is no need to use IPSEC or MACSEC since it is a restr= icted area. > 5) OAM is not a big concern This is very surprising to me. I thought with more tenants being served by = a Cloud Provider there will be a clear need for proper troubleshooting tool= s and SLA reporting. We did extensive work in IETF on that and I think it i= s extensively used by Telcos. SD> Today there is no OAM inside a DC. I agree that adding OAM adds value. > 6) Advanced load balancing is required including L2-L7 We always had ECMP in the IP/MPLS core and also EVPN/PBB-EVPN work is addre= ssing L2-L7 loadbalancing at service level. SD> OK. > 7) Efficient Multicast from multiple members of a multicast group is requ= ired See work on flood containment and Mcast handling in EVPN and PBB/SPB. SD> OK. > 8) Network management does a lot of the control plane functions I agree this is something we did not need up to now in L2VPN although indiv= idual vendor EMS did some control plane functions for VPNs before service A= uto-discovery was introduced. But I don't believe there is anything in the = charter preventing us from doing it. > 9) Core of data center is not MPLS (just IP or Ethernet) We have IP tunnels in scope in L2VPN. In L2VPN we had also PBB interop draf= t which defines interop between native Ethernet tunnels and PBB-VPLS. Same = can be said about PBB-EVPN draft. I know that we have IP tunnels in scope of L2VPN but we have not seen any s= pecific solution for IP-only cores (without MPLS and PW). > 10) Interworking between Data centers is required (may require translatio= n of > VPN identifier from local to global) You mean this is a good argument for keeping the work in L2VPN to make sure= we provide easy mapping of Tenant - WAN VPN ID right? SD> I meant that some new functions that have never been considered in L2VP= N group are required Thanks Shahram Thanks, Florin >=20 >=20 > Thx > Shahram >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > David Allan I > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:08 AM > To: Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virt= ualization >=20 > I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo.... >=20 > But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other netw= orking > overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying some kind of h= ybrid > network. I do not think that is the design intent of this exercise. This = is a > different technology set that those explored by L2VPN to date extended to= a > vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There is no other Ethernet networki= ng or > emulation in the equation. >=20 > N'est pas? >=20 > That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provider = provisioned > L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy cloud. Many= of > the issues discussed in the problem statement draft explicitly overlap th= e class > of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, particularly w.r.t. multicast... T= he > technologies have been changed to protect the innocent, that's all. >=20 > My 2 cents > D >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Giles Heron > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM > To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virt= ualization >=20 > I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). >=20 > In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? >=20 > Giles >=20 > On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: >=20 > > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another > network? > > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. > > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. > > > > Linda Dunbar > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen > >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM > >> To: Thomas Narten > >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > >> Virtualization > >> > >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. > >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also > >> be considered an overlay over IP. > >> > >> -- > >> Paul Unbehagen > >> > >> > >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > >> > >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" > >> writes: > >>> > >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work > >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed > >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - > >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM > >>>> mobility. > >>> > >>> Can you list which drafts these are? > >>> > >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: > >>> > >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt > >>> > >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? > >>> > >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of > >>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working > >>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing > >>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP > >>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also interoperate with > >>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to VP= N > customers. > >>> > >>> Maybe, maybe not. > >>> > >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the > >> L2VPN > >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, > >>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you > >>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the > >>> hosts > >> that > >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, > >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are > >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). > >>> > >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is > >>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor= . > >>> > >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part > >>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > >>> hypervisors. > >>> > >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches > >> and > >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they > >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. > >>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs > >>> have > >> a > >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > >>> way into switches and hypervisors. > >>> > >>> Does this make sense? > >>> > >>> Thomas >=20 >=20 >=20 From davari@broadcom.com Fri Oct 7 09:47:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF7C21F8C2D for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.229 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.455, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aUrIK3rAh5G2 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mms1.broadcom.com (mms1.broadcom.com [216.31.210.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A851B21F8BF9 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.16.192.224] by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:57:31 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 02CED230-5797-4B57-9875-D5D2FEE4708A Received: from SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.130]) by SJEXCHHUB01.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([10.16.192.224]) with mapi; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:50:31 -0700 From: "Shahram Davari" To: "Bitar, Nabil N" , "David Allan I" , "Giles Heron" , "Linda Dunbar" , "Paul Unbehagen" , "Thomas Narten" Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:50:29 -0700 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AcyC3cFxHqY5dmcXTqOcPuKNTPtCPwCMubEA Message-ID: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA9583D13@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> References: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 6291F0F13JW2440329-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:47:27 -0000 Hi Nabil, Please see my comments inline. Thanks Shahram -----Original Message----- From: Bitar, Nabil N [mailto:nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:37 PM To: Shahram Davari; David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehage= n; Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtua= lization Hi Sharam, Please see inline as a contributor opinion. Thanks, Nabil On 10/4/11 1:25 PM, "Shahram Davari" wrote: >Here is my 2c: > >There is certainly big overlap between data center networking and L2VPN. >However there are also some data center requirements, which I am not sure >is in the scope of L2VPN WG such as: Maybe, but I think what is not in scope or cannot be in scope would need to be identified. > >1) Private IP addresses are OK in data center, since it is confined to a >close environment I am not sure whose IP addresses are being referred to. However, that is assumed in all cases. If a customer connects to an L2VPN, they may be using private or public IP addresses. There is nothing that restricts this addressing one way or the other. SD> I was referring to TOR switches and Core router addresses that are conf= ined inside a DC >2) Most likely no IPV6 is needed Why would that assumption be made? I think it is safe to assume that if the data center will be serving public customers or serving enterprises, it would need to support IPv6. SD> Inside a DC, there is no need for IPv6 but as the packet gets out of DC= IPV6 is needed. >=20 >3) Scales are much higher than Service Provider networks. For example >there can be tens of thousands of Top of Rack switches and millions of >VPNs Data center driven requirements from scale aspect, resiliency or network efficiency and solutions to address them are in scope of the l2vpn WG. >4) connection Security is not a big concern ? SD> I meant inside DC there is no need for IPSEC or MACSEC. >=20 >5) OAM is not a big concern why would one think so, and OAM for what is not a concern. >=20 SD> I meant today no OAM is used in DC. >6) Advanced load balancing is required including L2-L7 Load-balancing is factored in as far ECMP etc., but I am not sure for data path perspective, why you would be concerned about application layer load-balancing SD> ECMP load balancing mostly relies on L2 and L3 header. DC may require f= iner grain load balancing.=20 >=20 >7) Efficient Multicast from multiple members of a multicast group is >required This pertains to both L2 and L3 and L2VPN and L3VPN address that and if something is identified as lacking, then it should be addressed >8) Network management does a lot of the control plane functions >9) Core of data center is not MPLS (just IP or Ethernet) IP-only PSN is within scope >10) Interworking between Data centers is required (may require >translation of VPN identifier from local to global) > > >Thx >Shahram > >-----Original Message----- >From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >David Allan I >Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:08 AM >To: Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten >Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >Virtualization > >I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo.... > >But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other >networking overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying >some kind of hybrid network. I do not think that is the design intent of >this exercise. This is a different technology set that those explored by >L2VPN to date extended to a vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There >is no other Ethernet networking or emulation in the equation. > >N'est pas? > >That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provider >provisioned L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy >cloud. Many of the issues discussed in the problem statement draft >explicitly overlap the class of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, >particularly w.r.t. multicast... The technologies have been changed to >protect the innocent, that's all. > >My 2 cents >D=20 > >-----Original Message----- >From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Giles Heron >Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM >To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten >Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >Virtualization > >I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). > >In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? > >Giles > >On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > >> Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another >>network? >> If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. >> Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. >>=20 >> Linda Dunbar >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen >>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM >>> To: Thomas Narten >>> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 >>> Virtualization >>>=20 >>> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPNs. >>> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could also >>> be considered an overlay over IP. >>>=20 >>> -- >>> Paul Unbehagen >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >>>=20 >>>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" >>> writes: >>>>=20 >>>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work >>>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed >>>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - >>>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM >>>>> mobility. >>>>=20 >>>> Can you list which drafts these are? >>>>=20 >>>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: >>>>=20 >>>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt >>>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt >>>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt >>>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt >>>>=20 >>>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? >>>>=20 >>>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of >>>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working >>>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing >>>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP >>>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also interoperate with >>>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to >>>>>VPN customers. >>>>=20 >>>> Maybe, maybe not. >>>>=20 >>>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the >>> L2VPN >>>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, >>>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and you >>>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the >>>> hosts >>> that >>>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before, >>>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames are >>>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as >>>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). >>>>=20 >>>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can >>>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the >>>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is >>>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a providor. >>>>=20 >>>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part >>>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the >>>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the >>>> hypervisors. >>>>=20 >>>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches >>> and >>>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they >>>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the >>>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. >>>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approachs >>>> have >>> a >>>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the >>>> way into switches and hypervisors. >>>>=20 >>>> Does this make sense? >>>>=20 >>>> Thomas > > > > From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Oct 7 13:31:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507E821F8B79 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:31:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.586 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ZSljzUM1Ygv for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4652E21F8B2A for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p97KYn30000747 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:34:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p97KYl8f026697 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:34:48 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:34:48 -0500 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: Shahram Davari , David Allan I , Giles Heron , Linda Dunbar , Paul Unbehagen , Thomas Narten Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:34:46 -0500 Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Topic: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization Thread-Index: AQHMggrhmfy5oZaB5EK0QNUSD9DzmpVrnlyAgAAjroCAAAFegIAAlpzAgAAM2P+AAAItAIAAA9RQgAATCwCABJoG8IAAPtZA Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC589D1F@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F61209B8D6@dfweml506-mbx> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223CEEC90@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA94D13CD@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC58962C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA9583D07@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6BBA9583D07@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:31:49 -0000 Hi Shahram, I believe a requirement draft is required from the DC Providers in order to= evaluate the differences with the focus on the future architecture. See be= low for some more clarifications on selected items. > -----Original Message----- > From: Shahram Davari [mailto:davari@broadcom.com] > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 9:45 AM > To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dun= bar; Paul > Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virt= ualization >=20 > Hi Florin, >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.= com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:48 AM > To: Shahram Davari; David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbeha= gen; > Thomas Narten > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virt= ualization >=20 > Hi Shahram, > I think we need some requirements draft driven by Cloud Providers. Let me= try > to add to your considerations below - see in-line... >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > > Shahram Davari > > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 AM > > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Na= rten > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Vi= rtualization > > > > Here is my 2c: > > > > There is certainly big overlap between data center networking and L2VPN= . > > However there are also some data center requirements, which I am not su= re is > in > > the scope of L2VPN WG such as: > > > > 1) Private IP addresses are OK in data center, since it is confined to = a close > > environment >=20 > If you are talking about private IP addresses in the DC core, that was al= ways in > scope for all VPN technologies. IP/MPLS core networks use private address= ing. If > you are talking about the VPN IP addressing then the deployed VPNs are ba= sed > on allowing this kind of addressing too. Actually that was one of the mai= n VPN > requirements from the beginning and to allow overlapping addressing betwe= en > customers. >=20 > SD> I was talking about the private IP address for the routers in the DC = core. I > don't think private IP address is allowed for Service Provider core. When it comes to VPN deployments there are no restrictions like this on the= Service Provider core: they may use (and some actually do) private address= ing inside their IP/MPLS core used for VPN transport.=20 [clipped]=20 =20 > > 9) Core of data center is not MPLS (just IP or Ethernet) >=20 > We have IP tunnels in scope in L2VPN. In L2VPN we had also PBB interop dr= aft > which defines interop between native Ethernet tunnels and PBB-VPLS. Same = can > be said about PBB-EVPN draft. >=20 > I know that we have IP tunnels in scope of L2VPN but we have not seen any > specific solution for IP-only cores (without MPLS and PW). L2TP based solutions were developed initially in PWE3 and then I believe in= L2TP WG. They are applicable and actually deployed in a number of VPLS and= VPWS networks. I am also aware of vendor solutions using GRE tunneling for= VPLS and VPWS that may be re-considered in L2VPN if needed. Thanks, Florin =20 > > 10) Interworking between Data centers is required (may require translat= ion of > > VPN identifier from local to global) >=20 > You mean this is a good argument for keeping the work in L2VPN to make su= re > we provide easy mapping of Tenant - WAN VPN ID right? >=20 > SD> I meant that some new functions that have never been considered in L2= VPN > group are required >=20 >=20 > Thanks > Shahram >=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Florin > > > > > > Thx > > Shahram > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > > David Allan I > > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:08 AM > > To: Giles Heron; Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Vi= rtualization > > > > I thought it was L2 over TRILL over foo.... > > > > But in this particular portion of the thread we are discussing other ne= tworking > > overlay techniques interworking with this overlay implying some kind of= hybrid > > network. I do not think that is the design intent of this exercise. Thi= s is a > > different technology set that those explored by L2VPN to date extended = to a > > vanilla (v)UNI in a greenfield build. There is no other Ethernet networ= king or > > emulation in the equation. > > > > N'est pas? > > > > That being said, I still think it falls under purview of L2VPN. Provide= r > provisioned > > L2VPNs are exactly the same class of problem as multi-tenancy cloud. Ma= ny of > > the issues discussed in the problem statement draft explicitly overlap = the class > > of solutions being discussed in L2VPN, particularly w.r.t. multicast...= The > > technologies have been changed to protect the innocent, that's all. > > > > My 2 cents > > D > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > > Giles Heron > > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:49 AM > > To: Linda Dunbar; Paul Unbehagen; Thomas Narten > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Vi= rtualization > > > > I think the "other" network has to be IP or MPLS (i.e. Layer 3). > > > > In the TRILL case it's L2 over L2, right? > > > > Giles > > > > On 04/10/2011 17:04, "Linda Dunbar" wrote: > > > > > Does it mean that L2VPN is about L2 network being tunneled by another > > network? > > > If yes, I totally agree with Florin's opinion. > > > Then TRILL is L2VPN as well based on this definition. > > > > > > Linda Dunbar > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > >> Behalf Of Paul Unbehagen > > >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:04 PM > > >> To: Thomas Narten > > >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > >> Subject: Re: Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 > > >> Virtualization > > >> > > >> I have to agree with Florin on this one. These are essentially L2VPN= s. > > >> Whether or not they are over IP or not is irrelevant. VPLS could als= o > > >> be considered an overlay over IP. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Paul Unbehagen > > >> > > >> > > >> On Oct 3, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > >> > > >>> "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" > > >> writes: > > >>> > > >>>> The L2VPN charter was modified a few months ago to include work > > >>>> related to DC/Cloud networking. There were a number of proposed > > >>>> requirements and solution initiatives that prompted the change - > > >>>> see drafts on EVPN, PBB-EVPN (requirements, solutions) and VM > > >>>> mobility. > > >>> > > >>> Can you list which drafts these are? > > >>> > > >>> For the EVPN, that would presumably be: > > >>> > > >>> draft-raggarwa-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-04.txt > > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-segment-route-00.txt > > >>> draft-sajassi-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-02.txt > > >>> draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01.txt > > >>> > > >>> What drafts relate to VM mobility? > > >>> > > >>>> The solution drafts you list below are about L2 over some sort of > > >>>> IP tunnels. IP PSN is in the charter for L2VPN and the working > > >>>> group has accumulated a lot of experience in my opinion dealing > > >>>> with all the VPN/multi-tenancy components, including L2/IP > > >>>> solution. Any DC related solutions need to also interoperate with > > >>>> existing VPNs as Cloud Provider want to deliver Cloud Services to = VPN > > customers. > > >>> > > >>> Maybe, maybe not. > > >>> > > >>> Let me be clear about one thing there. My impression is that the > > >> L2VPN > > >>> work has largely been about connecting L2 LANs together. That is, > > >>> you have existng L2 LANs (or VLANs, etc.) at multiple sites, and yo= u > > >>> want to glue them together so they look like one big LAN (to the > > >>> hosts > > >> that > > >>> connect to them). Hosts/servers interact with the network as before= , > > >>> sending L2 frames over an Ethernet. At some point, the L2 frames ar= e > > >>> picked up by an device that transports them over the WAN as > > >>> appropriate (using L2TPv3, MPLS, etc.). > > >>> > > >>> That is not what overlays are about. Conceptually, an overlay can > > >>> reside entirely within one datacenter. They can extend outside the > > >>> data center, but that is not a requirement. So the assumption is > > >>> they are setup and managed by the datacenter operator, not a provid= or. > > >>> > > >>> VMs on a server run on a hypervisor. The hypervisor itself is part > > >>> of the overlay. That is, the overlay extends everywhere within the > > >>> datacenter, including all the way up to the access switches and the > > >>> hypervisors. > > >>> > > >>> Thus, an overlay will have lots of "simple" devices (i.e, switches > > >> and > > >>> virtual switches) that are part of the overlay. While they > > >>> conceptually may have tunnels to all the other switches in the > > >>> overlay, in practice they don't need much per-destination state. > > >>> They just tunnel on demand. In contrast, the existing L2VP approach= s > > >>> have > > >> a > > >>> lot more state per endpoint and are just not designed to go all the > > >>> way into switches and hypervisors. > > >>> > > >>> Does this make sense? > > >>> > > >>> Thomas > > > > > > >=20 >=20 From jiangyuanlong@huawei.com Fri Oct 7 20:08:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D7C21F8922 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:08:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IxLk0H1vgO0Y for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EFD21F886A for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSQ00IKF8TDI2@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:10:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSQ00HUD8TD2F@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:10:25 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AEH65196; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:10:25 +0800 Received: from SZXEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.138) by szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:10:18 +0800 Received: from SZXEML508-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.65]) by szxeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.138]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:10:15 +0800 Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 03:10:14 +0000 From: Jiangyuanlong Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.70.40.72] To: Giles Heron Message-id: <3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68B041AD455@SZXEML508-MBS.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-index: AQHMhWfME2ZQSZQnkECKr6gZMmeIng== X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 03:08:07 -0000 Support Thanks Yuanlong ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:32:34 +0100 From: Giles Heron To: Subject: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by March 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. Thanks! Nabil & Giles ------------------------------ From yuqun.cao@gmail.com Sat Oct 8 18:19:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321BC21F8B8A for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 18:19:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.396 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[J_CHICKENPOX_75=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=2.796, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhbpvevzCNIN for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 18:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E0721F8B82 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 18:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so5627815yxt.31 for ; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:19:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:disposition-notification-to:x-mimeole; bh=KbNLLelIa9XemiLCIQ1Q3Rr2Yz1V/Kya4ydzX5JWLTc=; b=x8xF6lQpKCqaA6YeHGGljZjOU6UPyUGWNeUOtYaHFX0nqlBxnI84x8P1hVe0C4i/fQ tj+ej/Zn6U4TnbPjVrHTfUNeNpI/SkvZ9RRg+3obwc83p6OiPiTSqteaoP1ykTvF/28S 1HdoWqXJ/in1RlIALa3WYo2hc2hn63ssiaChc= Received: by 10.68.59.10 with SMTP id v10mr26117866pbq.16.1318123171955; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from R01842 ([110.90.119.113]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u1sm49277499pbr.9.2011.10.08.18.19.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <651AF1C3245A4C5BBCA43F80BA1EC8DD@ruijie.com.cn> From: "Sam Cao" To: References: Subject: Re: L2vpn Digest, Vol 88, Issue 10 Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 09:18:37 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.4657 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4862 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:19:35 -0000 SSBzdXBwb3J0IHRoaXMgZHJhZnQuDQoNClNhbQ0KDQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0t LS0tIA0KRnJvbTogPGwydnBuLXJlcXVlc3RAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpUbzogPGwydnBuQGlldGYub3Jn Pg0KU2VudDogRnJpZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMzAsIDIwMTEgOTowMiBBTQ0KU3ViamVjdDogTDJ2 cG4gRGlnZXN0LCBWb2wgODgsIElzc3VlIDEwDQoNCg0KPiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0 aGlzIGRpZ2VzdCB3aXRob3V0IGFsbCB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBtZXNzYWdlDQo+IGF0dGFjaG1l bnRzIHlvdSB3aWxsIG5lZWQgdG8gdXBkYXRlIHlvdXIgZGlnZXN0IG9wdGlvbnMgaW4geW91ciBs aXN0DQo+IHN1YnNjcmlwdGlvbi4gIFRvIGRvIHNvLCBnbyB0byANCj4gDQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3 LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbDJ2cG4NCj4gDQo+IENsaWNrIHRoZSAnVW5zdWJz Y3JpYmUgb3IgZWRpdCBvcHRpb25zJyBidXR0b24sIGxvZyBpbiwgYW5kIHNldCAiR2V0DQo+IE1J TUUgb3IgUGxhaW4gVGV4dCBEaWdlc3RzPyIgdG8gTUlNRS4gIFlvdSBjYW4gc2V0IHRoaXMgb3B0 aW9uDQo+IGdsb2JhbGx5IGZvciBhbGwgdGhlIGxpc3QgZGlnZXN0cyB5b3UgcmVjZWl2ZSBhdCB0 aGlzIHBvaW50Lg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBTZW5kIEwydnBuIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCBzdWJtaXNz aW9ucyB0bw0KPiBsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiANCj4gVG8gc3Vic2NyaWJlIG9yIHVuc3Vic2Ny aWJlIHZpYSB0aGUgV29ybGQgV2lkZSBXZWIsIHZpc2l0DQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3Jn L21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbDJ2cG4NCj4gb3IsIHZpYSBlbWFpbCwgc2VuZCBhIG1lc3NhZ2Ug d2l0aCBzdWJqZWN0IG9yIGJvZHkgJ2hlbHAnIHRvDQo+IGwydnBuLXJlcXVlc3RAaWV0Zi5vcmcN Cj4gDQo+IFlvdSBjYW4gcmVhY2ggdGhlIHBlcnNvbiBtYW5hZ2luZyB0aGUgbGlzdCBhdA0KPiBs MnZwbi1vd25lckBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiANCj4gV2hlbiByZXBseWluZywgcGxlYXNlIGVkaXQgeW91 ciBTdWJqZWN0IGxpbmUgc28gaXQgaXMgbW9yZSBzcGVjaWZpYw0KPiB0aGFuICJSZTogQ29udGVu dHMgb2YgTDJ2cG4gZGlnZXN0Li4uIg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IFRvZGF5J3MgVG9waWNzOg0KPiANCj4g ICAxLiBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1rZXktbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1ldHJlZS1yZXF0PyAoR2ls ZXMgSGVyb24pDQo+ICAgMi4gUmU6IFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWtleS1sMnZwbi12cGxz LWV0cmVlLXJlcXQ/IChTaW1vbiBEZWxvcmQpDQo+ICAgMy4gUmU6IFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRy YWZ0LWtleS1sMnZwbi12cGxzLWV0cmVlLXJlcXQ/IChSb2dlcnMsIEpvc2gpDQo+ICAgNC4gUmU6 ICBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1rZXktbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1ldHJlZS1yZXF0Pw0KPiAgICAg ICh3aWxsaWFtLnpheWFzQGZpYmVyY3Jvc3NpbmcubmV0KQ0KPiAgIDUuIFJFOiBXRyBhZG9wdGlv biBvZiBkcmFmdC1rZXktbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1ldHJlZS1yZXF0PyAoUmF5bW9uZCBLZXkpDQo+ICAg Ni4gUmU6IFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWtleS1sMnZwbi12cGxzLWV0cmVlLXJlcXQ/DQo+ ICAgICAgKE1hbGxldHRlLCBFZHdpbikNCj4gICA3LiBSRTogV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQt a2V5LWwydnBuLXZwbHMtZXRyZWUtcmVxdD8gKE1hY2ggQ2hlbikNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tDQo+IA0KPiBNZXNzYWdlOiAxDQo+IERhdGU6IFRodSwgMjkgU2VwIDIwMTEgMjA6MzI6 MzQgKzAxMDANCj4gRnJvbTogR2lsZXMgSGVyb24gPGdpbGVzLmhlcm9uQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4NCj4g VG86IDxsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCj4gU3ViamVjdDogV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQta2V5 LWwydnBuLXZwbHMtZXRyZWUtcmVxdD8NCj4gTWVzc2FnZS1JRDogPENBQUE4NjYyLkVFQjQlZ2ls ZXMuaGVyb25AZ21haWwuY29tPg0KPiBDb250ZW50LVR5cGU6IHRleHQvcGxhaW47IGNoYXJzZXQ9 IlVTLUFTQ0lJIg0KPiANCj4gVGhpcyBpcyBhIHJlcXVlc3QgdG8gZ2F1Z2UgY29uc2Vuc3VzIGFz IHRvIHdoZXRoZXI6DQo+IA0KPiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1rZXkt bDJ2cG4tdnBscy1ldHJlZS1yZXF0LTA0DQo+IA0KPiBzaG91bGQgYmUgYWNjZXB0ZWQgYXMgYW4g TDJWUE4gV0cgZHJhZnQuDQo+IA0KPiBOb3cgdGhhdCB3ZSd2ZSBhZG9wdGVkIHRoZSBuZXcgY2hh cnRlciBFLVRyZWUgaXMgaW4gc2NvcGUsIGFuZCB3ZSBoYXZlIGENCj4gbWlsZXN0b25lIGl0ZW0g dG8gc3VibWl0IGEgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGRyYWZ0IGZvciBFLVRyZWUgdG8gSUVTRyBieSBNYXJj aA0KPiAyMDEyLiAgSWYgeW91IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgYSBnb29kIHN0YXJ0aW5nIHBv aW50IGZvciB0aG9zZQ0KPiByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgdGhlbiBwbGVhc2UgcmVwbHkgaW5kaWNhdGlu ZyB5b3VyIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gIElmDQo+IG5vdCB0aGVuIHBsZWFzZSByZXBs eSBnaXZpbmcgc29tZSByZWFzb25zIHdoeSB5b3UgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBzaG91bGRuJ3QN Cj4gYmUgYWRvcHRlZCAtIHdoaWNoIHdlIGNhbiB0aGVuIGRlYmF0ZS4NCj4gDQo+IFBsZWFzZSBy ZXNwb25kIGJ5IFRodXJzZGF5IDEzdGggb2YgT2N0b2Jlci4NCj4gDQo+IFRoYW5rcyENCj4gDQo+ IE5hYmlsICYgR2lsZXMNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLQ0KPiANCj4gTWVzc2FnZTogMg0KPiBEYXRlOiBGcmksIDMwIFNlcCAyMDExIDA1OjEz OjMxICswODAwDQo+IEZyb206IFNpbW9uIERlbG9yZCA8c2ltb24uZGVsb3JkQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4N Cj4gVG86IEdpbGVzIEhlcm9uIDxnaWxlcy5oZXJvbkBnbWFpbC5jb20+LCBsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9y Zw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQta2V5LWwydnBuLXZwbHMtZXRy ZWUtcmVxdD8NCj4gTWVzc2FnZS1JRDoNCj4gPENBSDY0UnRrcllNZFI4ZVFTTUtzOWdnY2kxVC01 ZFpka05xM19GOFZCRGo5VmZMSlgxd0BtYWlsLmdtYWlsLmNvbT4NCj4gQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0 ZXh0L3BsYWluOyBjaGFyc2V0PSJpc28tODg1OS0xIg0KPiANCj4gc3VwcG9ydCwNCj4gU2ltb24N Cj4gDQo+IDIwMTEvOS8zMCBHaWxlcyBIZXJvbiA8Z2lsZXMuaGVyb25AZ21haWwuY29tPg0KPiAN Cj4+IFRoaXMgaXMgYSByZXF1ZXN0IHRvIGdhdWdlIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBhcyB0byB3aGV0aGVyOg0K Pj4NCj4+IGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWtleS1sMnZwbi12cGxzLWV0 cmVlLXJlcXQtMDQNCj4+DQo+PiBzaG91bGQgYmUgYWNjZXB0ZWQgYXMgYW4gTDJWUE4gV0cgZHJh ZnQuDQo+Pg0KPj4gTm93IHRoYXQgd2UndmUgYWRvcHRlZCB0aGUgbmV3IGNoYXJ0ZXIgRS1UcmVl IGlzIGluIHNjb3BlLCBhbmQgd2UgaGF2ZSBhDQo+PiBtaWxlc3RvbmUgaXRlbSB0byBzdWJtaXQg YSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZHJhZnQgZm9yIEUtVHJlZSB0byBJRVNHIGJ5IE1hcmNoDQo+PiAyMDEy LiAgSWYgeW91IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgYSBnb29kIHN0YXJ0aW5nIHBvaW50IGZvciB0 aG9zZQ0KPj4gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIHRoZW4gcGxlYXNlIHJlcGx5IGluZGljYXRpbmcgeW91ciBz dXBwb3J0IGZvciB0aGUgZHJhZnQuICBJZg0KPj4gbm90IHRoZW4gcGxlYXNlIHJlcGx5IGdpdmlu ZyBzb21lIHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5IHlvdSB0aGluayB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0DQo+PiBzaG91bGRuJ3QNCj4+ IGJlIGFkb3B0ZWQgLSB3aGljaCB3ZSBjYW4gdGhlbiBkZWJhdGUuDQo+Pg0KPj4gUGxlYXNlIHJl c3BvbmQgYnkgVGh1cnNkYXkgMTN0aCBvZiBPY3RvYmVyLg0KPj4NCj4+IFRoYW5rcyENCj4+DQo+ PiBOYWJpbCAmIEdpbGVzDQo+Pg0KPj4NCj4+DQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tIG5leHQgcGFydCAt LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiBBbiBIVE1MIGF0dGFjaG1lbnQgd2FzIHNjcnViYmVkLi4uDQo+IFVS TDogPGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC1hcmNoaXZlL3dlYi9sMnZwbi9hdHRhY2htZW50 cy8yMDExMDkzMC8xNjZmYmUxMy9hdHRhY2htZW50Lmh0bT4NCj4gDQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiANCj4gTWVzc2FnZTogMw0KPiBEYXRlOiBUaHUsIDI5IFNlcCAy MDExIDE3OjE3OjM0IC0wNDAwDQo+IEZyb206ICJSb2dlcnMsIEpvc2giIDxqb3NoLnJvZ2Vyc0B0 d2NhYmxlLmNvbT4NCj4gVG86ICJsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZyIgPGwydnBuQGlldGYub3JnPg0KPiBT dWJqZWN0OiBSZTogV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQta2V5LWwydnBuLXZwbHMtZXRyZWUtcmVx dD8NCj4gTWVzc2FnZS1JRDogPENBQUE0QTY1LjI2MDlGJWpvc2gucm9nZXJzQHR3Y2FibGUuY29t Pg0KPiBDb250ZW50LVR5cGU6IHRleHQvcGxhaW47IGNoYXJzZXQ9InVzLWFzY2lpIg0KPiANCj4g SSBzdXBwb3J0IGl0Lg0KPiANCj4gSm9zaA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBGcm9tOiAgU2ltb24gRGVs b3JkIDxzaW1vbi5kZWxvcmRAZ21haWwuY29tPg0KPiBEYXRlOiAgVGh1LCAyOSBTZXAgMjAxMSAx NzoxMzozMSAtMDQwMA0KPiBUbzogIEdpbGVzIEhlcm9uIDxnaWxlcy5oZXJvbkBnbWFpbC5jb20+ LCAibDJ2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmciIDxsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCj4gU3ViamVjdDogIFJlOiBXRyBh ZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1rZXktbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1ldHJlZS1yZXF0Pw0KPiANCj4gDQo+IHN1 cHBvcnQsU2ltb24NCj4gDQo+IDIwMTEvOS8zMCBHaWxlcyBIZXJvbiA8Z2lsZXMuaGVyb25AZ21h aWwuY29tPg0KPiANCj4gVGhpcyBpcyBhIHJlcXVlc3QgdG8gZ2F1Z2UgY29uc2Vuc3VzIGFzIHRv IHdoZXRoZXI6DQo+IA0KPiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1rZXktbDJ2 cG4tdnBscy1ldHJlZS1yZXF0LTA0DQo+IA0KPiBzaG91bGQgYmUgYWNjZXB0ZWQgYXMgYW4gTDJW UE4gV0cgZHJhZnQuDQo+IA0KPiBOb3cgdGhhdCB3ZSd2ZSBhZG9wdGVkIHRoZSBuZXcgY2hhcnRl ciBFLVRyZWUgaXMgaW4gc2NvcGUsIGFuZCB3ZSBoYXZlIGENCj4gbWlsZXN0b25lIGl0ZW0gdG8g c3VibWl0IGEgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGRyYWZ0IGZvciBFLVRyZWUgdG8gSUVTRyBieSBNYXJjaA0K PiAyMDEyLiAgSWYgeW91IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgYSBnb29kIHN0YXJ0aW5nIHBvaW50 IGZvciB0aG9zZQ0KPiByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgdGhlbiBwbGVhc2UgcmVwbHkgaW5kaWNhdGluZyB5 b3VyIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gIElmDQo+IG5vdCB0aGVuIHBsZWFzZSByZXBseSBn aXZpbmcgc29tZSByZWFzb25zIHdoeSB5b3UgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBkcmFmdA0KPiBzaG91bGRuJ3QN Cj4gYmUgYWRvcHRlZCAtIHdoaWNoIHdlIGNhbiB0aGVuIGRlYmF0ZS4NCj4gDQo+IFBsZWFzZSBy ZXNwb25kIGJ5IFRodXJzZGF5IDEzdGggb2YgT2N0b2Jlci4NCj4gDQo+IFRoYW5rcyENCj4gDQo+ IE5hYmlsICYgR2lsZXMNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBUaGlzIEUt bWFpbCBhbmQgYW55IG9mIGl0cyBhdHRhY2htZW50cyBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBUaW1lIFdhcm5lciBD YWJsZSBwcm9wcmlldGFyeSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgd2hpY2ggaXMgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCwgY29uZmlk ZW50aWFsLCBvciBzdWJqZWN0IHRvIGNvcHlyaWdodCBiZWxvbmdpbmcgdG8gVGltZSBXYXJuZXIg Q2FibGUuIFRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGlzIGludGVuZGVkIHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUg aW5kaXZpZHVhbCBvciBlbnRpdHkgdG8gd2hpY2ggaXQgaXMgYWRkcmVzc2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJl IG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcmVjaXBpZW50IG9mIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsLCB5b3UgYXJlIGhlcmVi eSBub3RpZmllZCB0aGF0IGFueSBkaXNzZW1pbmF0aW9uLCBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24sIGNvcHlpbmcs IG9yIGFjdGlvbiB0YWtlbiBpbiByZWxhdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgY29udGVudHMgb2YgYW5kIGF0dGFj aG1lbnRzIHRvIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGlzIHN0cmljdGx5IHByb2hpYml0ZWQgYW5kIG1heSBiZSB1 bmxhd2Z1bC4gSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgcmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IsIHBsZWFz ZSBub3RpZnkgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBpbW1lZGlhdGVseSBhbmQgcGVybWFuZW50bHkgZGVsZXRlIHRo ZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBhbmQgYW55IGNvcHkgb2YgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBwcmludG91dC4N Cj4gDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gDQo+IE1lc3NhZ2U6 IDQNCj4gRGF0ZTogVGh1LCAyOSBTZXAgMjAxMSAyMTo1OTo1NCArMDAwMA0KPiBGcm9tOiB3aWxs aWFtLnpheWFzQGZpYmVyY3Jvc3NpbmcubmV0DQo+IFRvOiAiUm9nZXJzLCBKb3NoIiA8am9zaC5y b2dlcnNAdHdjYWJsZS5jb20+LCBsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogIFdHIGFk b3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWtleS1sMnZwbi12cGxzLWV0cmVlLXJlcXQ/DQo+IE1lc3NhZ2UtSUQ6 IDxXMzM1NTAyMjU2NTIzNjA5MTMxNzMzMzU5NEB3ZWJtYWlsOT4NCj4gQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0 ZXh0L3BsYWluOyBjaGFyc2V0PSJ1cy1hc2NpaSINCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBTdXBwb3J0Lg0KPiANCj4g DQo+IA0KPiBPYnJpZ2Fkby4uOikNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdl LS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogUm9nZXJzLCBKb3NoIFttYWlsdG86am9zaC5yb2dlcnNAdHdjYWJsZS5j b21dDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBTZXB0ZW1iZXIgMjksIDIwMTEgMDU6MTcgUE0NCj4gVG86 IGwydnBuQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBXRyBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1rZXkt bDJ2cG4tdnBscy1ldHJlZS1yZXF0Pw0KPiANCj4gSSBzdXBwb3J0IGl0LiBKb3NoIEZyb206IFNp bW9uIERlbG9yZCBEYXRlOiBUaHUsIDI5IFNlcCAyMDExIDE3OjEzOjMxIC0wNDAwIFRvOiBHaWxl cyBIZXJvbiAsICJsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZyIgU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRy YWZ0LWtleS1sMnZwbi12cGxzLWV0cmVlLXJlcXQ/IHN1cHBvcnQsU2ltb24gMjAxMS85LzMwIEdp bGVzIEhlcm9uIFRoaXMgaXMgYSByZXF1ZXN0IHRvIGdhdWdlIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBhcyB0byB3aGV0 aGVyOiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1rZXktbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1ldHJl ZS1yZXF0LTA0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBhY2NlcHRlZCBhcyBhbiBMMlZQTiBXRyBkcmFmdC4gTm93IHRo YXQgd2UndmUgYWRvcHRlZCB0aGUgbmV3IGNoYXJ0ZXIgRS1UcmVlIGlzIGluIHNjb3BlLCBhbmQg d2UgaGF2ZSBhIG1pbGVzdG9uZSBpdGVtIHRvIHN1Ym1pdCBhIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBkcmFmdCBm b3IgRS1UcmVlIHRvIElFU0cgYnkgTWFyY2ggMjAxMi4gSWYgeW91IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQg aXMgYSBnb29kIHN0YXJ0aW5nIHBvaW50IGZvciB0aG9zZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgdGhlbiBwbGVh c2UgcmVwbHkgaW5kaWNhdGluZyB5b3VyIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gSWYgbm90IHRo ZW4gcGxlYXNlIHJlcGx5IGdpdmluZyBzb21lIHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5IHlvdSB0aGluayB0aGlzIGRy YWZ0IHNob3VsZG4ndCBiZSBhZG9wdGVkIC0gd2hpY2ggd2UgY2FuIHRoZW4gZGViYXRlLiBQbGVh c2UgcmVzcG9uZCBieSBUaHVyc2RheSAxM3RoIG9mIE9jdG9iZXIuIFRoYW5rcyEgTmFiaWwgJiBH aWxlcyBUaGlzIEUtbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55IG9mIGl0cyBhdHRhY2htZW50cyBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBU aW1lIFdhcm5lciBDYWJsZSBwcm9wcmlldGFyeSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgd2hpY2ggaXMgcHJpdmls ZWdlZCwgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBvciBzdWJqZWN0IHRvIGNvcHlyaWdodCBiZWxvbmdpDQo+IG5n IHRvIFRpbWUgV2FybmVyIENhYmxlLiBUaGlzIEUtbWFpbCBpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCBzb2xlbHkgZm9y IHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgb3IgZW50aXR5IHRvIHdoaWNoIGl0IGlzIGFkZHJl c3NlZC4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBub3QgdGhlIGludGVuZGVkIHJlY2lwaWVudCBvZiB0aGlzIEUtbWFp bCwgeW91IGFyZSBoZXJlYnkgbm90aWZpZWQgdGhhdCBhbnkgZGlzc2VtaW5hdGlvbiwgZGlzdHJp YnV0aW9uLCBjb3B5aW5nLCBvciBhY3Rpb24gdGFrZW4gaW4gcmVsYXRpb24gdG8gdGhlIGNvbnRl bnRzIG9mIGFuZCBhdHRhY2htZW50cyB0byB0aGlzIEUtbWFpbCBpcyBzdHJpY3RseSBwcm9oaWJp dGVkIGFuZCBtYXkgYmUgdW5sYXdmdWwuIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRoaXMgRS1tYWls IGluIGVycm9yLCBwbGVhc2Ugbm90aWZ5IHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgaW1tZWRpYXRlbHkgYW5kIHBlcm1h bmVudGx5IGRlbGV0ZSB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgYW5kIGFueSBjb3B5IG9mIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGFu ZCBhbnkgcHJpbnRvdXQuIA0KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLSBuZXh0IHBhcnQgLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0NCj4gQW4gSFRNTCBhdHRhY2htZW50IHdhcyBzY3J1YmJlZC4uLg0KPiBVUkw6IDxodHRwOi8v d3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWwtYXJjaGl2ZS93ZWIvbDJ2cG4vYXR0YWNobWVudHMvMjAxMTA5Mjkv MTBjZTBiYzUvYXR0YWNobWVudC5odG0+DQo+IA0KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0NCj4gDQo+IE1lc3NhZ2U6IDUNCj4gRGF0ZTogRnJpLCAzMCBTZXAgMjAxMSAxMDo1MToy MiArMTAzMA0KPiBGcm9tOiBSYXltb25kIEtleSA8cmF5bW9uZC5rZXlAaWVlZS5vcmc+DQo+IFRv OiA8Z2lsZXMuaGVyb25AZ21haWwuY29tPiwgPGwydnBuQGlldGYub3JnPg0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBS RTogV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQta2V5LWwydnBuLXZwbHMtZXRyZWUtcmVxdD8NCj4gTWVz c2FnZS1JRDogPFNOVDEyMy1XMzBDQzE1RDREMkJERERDMkI2MzJBNkY0RjcwQHBoeC5nYmw+DQo+ IENvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogdGV4dC9wbGFpbjsgY2hhcnNldD0iaXNvLTg4NTktMSINCj4gDQo+IA0K PiBJIHN1cHBvcnQuDQo+IFJheW1vbmQNCj4gDQo+IA0KPj4gRGF0ZTogVGh1LCAyOSBTZXAgMjAx MSAyMDozMjozNCArMDEwMA0KPj4gU3ViamVjdDogV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQta2V5LWwy dnBuLXZwbHMtZXRyZWUtcmVxdD8NCj4+IEZyb206IGdpbGVzLmhlcm9uQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ0KPj4g VG86IGwydnBuQGlldGYub3JnDQo+PiANCj4+IFRoaXMgaXMgYSByZXF1ZXN0IHRvIGdhdWdlIGNv bnNlbnN1cyBhcyB0byB3aGV0aGVyOg0KPj4gDQo+PiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRt bC9kcmFmdC1rZXktbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1ldHJlZS1yZXF0LTA0DQo+PiANCj4+IHNob3VsZCBiZSBh Y2NlcHRlZCBhcyBhbiBMMlZQTiBXRyBkcmFmdC4NCj4+IA0KPj4gTm93IHRoYXQgd2UndmUgYWRv cHRlZCB0aGUgbmV3IGNoYXJ0ZXIgRS1UcmVlIGlzIGluIHNjb3BlLCBhbmQgd2UgaGF2ZSBhDQo+ PiBtaWxlc3RvbmUgaXRlbSB0byBzdWJtaXQgYSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZHJhZnQgZm9yIEUtVHJl ZSB0byBJRVNHIGJ5IE1hcmNoDQo+PiAyMDEyLiBJZiB5b3UgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBpcyBh IGdvb2Qgc3RhcnRpbmcgcG9pbnQgZm9yIHRob3NlDQo+PiByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgdGhlbiBwbGVh c2UgcmVwbHkgaW5kaWNhdGluZyB5b3VyIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gSWYNCj4+IG5v dCB0aGVuIHBsZWFzZSByZXBseSBnaXZpbmcgc29tZSByZWFzb25zIHdoeSB5b3UgdGhpbmsgdGhp cyBkcmFmdCBzaG91bGRuJ3QNCj4+IGJlIGFkb3B0ZWQgLSB3aGljaCB3ZSBjYW4gdGhlbiBkZWJh dGUuDQo+PiANCj4+IFBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIGJ5IFRodXJzZGF5IDEzdGggb2YgT2N0b2Jlci4N Cj4+IA0KPj4gVGhhbmtzIQ0KPj4gDQo+PiBOYWJpbCAmIEdpbGVzDQo+PiANCj4+IA0KPiAgICAg ICANCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0gbmV4dCBwYXJ0IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+IEFuIEhUTUwg YXR0YWNobWVudCB3YXMgc2NydWJiZWQuLi4NCj4gVVJMOiA8aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9t YWlsLWFyY2hpdmUvd2ViL2wydnBuL2F0dGFjaG1lbnRzLzIwMTEwOTMwL2UyODY4Y2E5L2F0dGFj aG1lbnQuaHRtPg0KPiANCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+IA0KPiBN ZXNzYWdlOiA2DQo+IERhdGU6IFRodSwgMjkgU2VwIDIwMTEgMjA6MzY6MzUgLTA0MDANCj4gRnJv bTogIk1hbGxldHRlLCBFZHdpbiIgPEVkd2luLk1hbGxldHRlQGJobmlzLmNvbT4NCj4gVG86IEdp bGVzIEhlcm9uIDxnaWxlcy5oZXJvbkBnbWFpbC5jb20+LCAibDJ2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmciDQo+IDxs MnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZz4NCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWtleS1s MnZwbi12cGxzLWV0cmVlLXJlcXQ/DQo+IE1lc3NhZ2UtSUQ6IDxDQUFBODc0NC4xN0VCNiVlZHdp bi5tYWxsZXR0ZUBiaG5pcy5jb20+DQo+IENvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogdGV4dC9wbGFpbjsgY2hhcnNl dD0idXMtYXNjaWkiDQo+IA0KPiAvU3VwcG9ydA0KPiANCj4gRWQNCj4gDQo+IE9uIDkvMjkvMTEg MzozMiBQTSwgIkdpbGVzIEhlcm9uIiA8Z2lsZXMuaGVyb25AZ21haWwuY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCj4g DQo+PlRoaXMgaXMgYSByZXF1ZXN0IHRvIGdhdWdlIGNvbnNlbnN1cyBhcyB0byB3aGV0aGVyOg0K Pj4NCj4+aHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQta2V5LWwydnBuLXZwbHMtZXRy ZWUtcmVxdC0wNA0KPj4NCj4+c2hvdWxkIGJlIGFjY2VwdGVkIGFzIGFuIEwyVlBOIFdHIGRyYWZ0 Lg0KPj4NCj4+Tm93IHRoYXQgd2UndmUgYWRvcHRlZCB0aGUgbmV3IGNoYXJ0ZXIgRS1UcmVlIGlz IGluIHNjb3BlLCBhbmQgd2UgaGF2ZSBhDQo+Pm1pbGVzdG9uZSBpdGVtIHRvIHN1Ym1pdCBhIHJl cXVpcmVtZW50cyBkcmFmdCBmb3IgRS1UcmVlIHRvIElFU0cgYnkgTWFyY2gNCj4+MjAxMi4gIElm IHlvdSB0aGluayB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGlzIGEgZ29vZCBzdGFydGluZyBwb2ludCBmb3IgdGhvc2UN Cj4+cmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIHRoZW4gcGxlYXNlIHJlcGx5IGluZGljYXRpbmcgeW91ciBzdXBwb3J0 IGZvciB0aGUgZHJhZnQuICBJZg0KPj5ub3QgdGhlbiBwbGVhc2UgcmVwbHkgZ2l2aW5nIHNvbWUg cmVhc29ucyB3aHkgeW91IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQNCj4+c2hvdWxkbid0DQo+PmJlIGFkb3B0 ZWQgLSB3aGljaCB3ZSBjYW4gdGhlbiBkZWJhdGUuDQo+Pg0KPj5QbGVhc2UgcmVzcG9uZCBieSBU aHVyc2RheSAxM3RoIG9mIE9jdG9iZXIuDQo+Pg0KPj5UaGFua3MhDQo+Pg0KPj5OYWJpbCAmIEdp bGVzDQo+Pg0KPj4NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBDT05GSURFTlRJQUxJVFkgTk9USUNFOiBUaGlzIGUtbWFp bCBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0aGF0IGlzIHByaXZpbGVnZWQsIGNvbmZpZGVudGlh bCBvciBvdGhlcndpc2UgcHJvdGVjdGVkIGZyb20gZGlzY2xvc3VyZS4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBub3Qg dGhlIGludGVuZGVkIHJlY2lwaWVudCBvZiB0aGlzIGUtbWFpbCwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUg c2VuZGVyIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGJ5IHJldHVybiBlLW1haWwsIHB1cmdlIGl0IGFuZCBkbyBub3Qg ZGlzc2VtaW5hdGUgb3IgY29weSBpdC4NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gDQo+IE1lc3NhZ2U6IDcNCj4gRGF0ZTogRnJpLCAzMCBTZXAgMjAxMSAwMDo1 NDoxNSArMDAwMA0KPiBGcm9tOiBNYWNoIENoZW4gPG1hY2guY2hlbkBodWF3ZWkuY29tPg0KPiBU bzogR2lsZXMgSGVyb24gPGdpbGVzLmhlcm9uQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4sICJsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZyIN Cj4gPGwydnBuQGlldGYub3JnPg0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogV0cgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQt a2V5LWwydnBuLXZwbHMtZXRyZWUtcmVxdD8NCj4gTWVzc2FnZS1JRDoNCj4gPEY3M0EzQ0IzMUU4 QkUzNEZBMUJCRTNDOEYwQ0IyQUUyMDdENzE0M0ZAU1pYRU1MNTExLU1CWC5jaGluYS5odWF3ZWku Y29tPg0KPiANCj4gQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0L3BsYWluOyBjaGFyc2V0PXVzLWFzY2lpDQo+ IA0KPiBTdXBwb3J0IQ0KPiANCj4gQmVzdCByZWdhcmRzLA0KPiBNYWNoDQo+IA0KPj4gLS0tLS1P cmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4+IEZyb206IGwydnBuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21h aWx0bzpsMnZwbi1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YNCj4+IEdpbGVzIEhlcm9u DQo+PiBTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIFNlcHRlbWJlciAzMCwgMjAxMSAzOjMzIEFNDQo+PiBUbzogbDJ2 cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFdHIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWtleS1sMnZwbi12 cGxzLWV0cmVlLXJlcXQ/DQo+PiANCj4+IFRoaXMgaXMgYSByZXF1ZXN0IHRvIGdhdWdlIGNvbnNl bnN1cyBhcyB0byB3aGV0aGVyOg0KPj4gDQo+PiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9k cmFmdC1rZXktbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1ldHJlZS1yZXF0LTA0DQo+PiANCj4+IHNob3VsZCBiZSBhY2Nl cHRlZCBhcyBhbiBMMlZQTiBXRyBkcmFmdC4NCj4+IA0KPj4gTm93IHRoYXQgd2UndmUgYWRvcHRl ZCB0aGUgbmV3IGNoYXJ0ZXIgRS1UcmVlIGlzIGluIHNjb3BlLCBhbmQgd2UgaGF2ZSBhDQo+PiBt aWxlc3RvbmUgaXRlbSB0byBzdWJtaXQgYSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZHJhZnQgZm9yIEUtVHJlZSB0 byBJRVNHIGJ5IE1hcmNoDQo+PiAyMDEyLiAgSWYgeW91IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgYSBn b29kIHN0YXJ0aW5nIHBvaW50IGZvciB0aG9zZQ0KPj4gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIHRoZW4gcGxlYXNl IHJlcGx5IGluZGljYXRpbmcgeW91ciBzdXBwb3J0IGZvciB0aGUgZHJhZnQuICBJZg0KPj4gbm90 IHRoZW4gcGxlYXNlIHJlcGx5IGdpdmluZyBzb21lIHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5IHlvdSB0aGluayB0aGlz IGRyYWZ0IHNob3VsZG4ndA0KPj4gYmUgYWRvcHRlZCAtIHdoaWNoIHdlIGNhbiB0aGVuIGRlYmF0 ZS4NCj4+IA0KPj4gUGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgYnkgVGh1cnNkYXkgMTN0aCBvZiBPY3RvYmVyLg0K Pj4gDQo+PiBUaGFua3MhDQo+PiANCj4+IE5hYmlsICYgR2lsZXMNCj4+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0K PiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IEwydnBuIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBM MnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2wy dnBuDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gRW5kIG9mIEwydnBuIERpZ2VzdCwgVm9sIDg4LCBJc3N1ZSAxMA0KPiAq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqDQo+ From xuxiaohu@huawei.com Sat Oct 8 19:32:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD3D21F8ABB; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:32:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.247 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=2.796, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lsxBl4dfURAM; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD54A21F8AC3; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:32:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSS00D7I1PR49@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:32:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LSS00H0L1PRCA@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:32:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AEH94871; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:32:14 +0800 Received: from SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.31) by szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:32:05 +0800 Received: from SZXEML525-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.181]) by szxeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.31]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:32:04 +0800 Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:32:04 +0000 From: Xuxiaohu Subject: possible scope gap//re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap? In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.115] To: Murari Sridharan , Thomas Narten , "nvo3@ietf.org" Message-id: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE737EBA@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_nlelq/qHZG+qfIDnAezW/w)" Content-language: zh-CN Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: possible scope gap//re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap? Thread-index: AQHMgjl58MaBPbTLN0ykbFrwIKf11JVrFaoAgAgxL0A= X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <201110040004.p94048u7009531@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:32:19 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_nlelq/qHZG+qfIDnAezW/w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 SXQgaXMgYSBnb29kIHF1ZXN0aW9uLg0KDQpJTUhPLCBJdKGvcyBhYnNvbHV0ZWx5IHBvc3NpYmxl IHRvIHJlYWxpemUgbmV0d29yayB2aXJ0dWFsaXphdGlvbiBpbiBhIGRhdGEgY2VudGVyIG9yIGFj cm9zcyBtdWx0aXBsZSBkYXRhIGNlbnRlcnMgYnkgdXNpbmcgTDMgb3ZlcmxheSwgZXNwZWNpYWxs eSBob3N0IHJvdXRlIGJhc2VkIElQLW9ubHkgTDJWUE4gc2VydmljZS4gSG9zdCByb3V0ZSBiYXNl ZCBJUC1vbmx5IEwyVlBOIHNlcnZpY2UgY291bGQgYWxzbyBhbGxvdyB0aGUgaG9zdHMgd2l0aGlu IGEgZ2l2ZSBWUE4gaW5zdGFuY2UgdG8gYWN0IGFzIGlmIHRoZXkgd2VyZSBsb2NhdGVkIHdpdGhp biBhIHN1Ym5ldC9MQU4gZXhjZXB0IHRoYXQgb25seSBJUCB0cmFmZmljIGlzIHN1cHBvcnRlZC4g Q29tcGFyZWQgdG8gdGhvc2UgTUFDIGZvcndhcmRpbmcgYmFzZWQgTDJWUE4gc2VydmljZXMgKGku ZS4sIEwyIG92ZXJsYXkpIHN1Y2ggYXMgVlBMUywgIGhvc3Qgcm91dGUgYmFzZWQgSVAtb25seSBM MlZQTiBzZXJ2aWNlIGRvZXMgc2VlbSBhIGJpdCByZXN0cmljdGl2ZSBzaW5jZSB0aG9zZSBsZWdh Y3kgbm9uLUlQIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyAoZS5nLiwgbGluay1sb2NhbCBtdWx0aWNhc3QsIG5vbi1J UCB1bmljYXN0KSB3b3VsZCBub3QgYmUgc3VwcG9ydGVkLiBIb3dldmVyLCBob3N0IGJhc2VkIElQ LW9ubHkgTDJWUE4gc2VydmljZSBoYXMgbWFueSB1bmlxdWUgYW5kIGNoYXJtaW5nIGFkdmFudGFn ZXMgaW4gYWRkcmVzc2luZyB0aGUgc2NhbGluZyBpc3N1ZXMgdGhhdCB0b2RheaGvcyBjbG91ZCBk YXRhIGNlbnRlcnMgYXJlIGZhY2luZywgc3VjaCBhcyBBUlAgYnJvYWRjYXN0IHN0b3JtIHJlZHVj dGlvbiwgdW5rbm93biB1bmljYXN0IGZsb29kaW5nIGF2b2lkYW5jZSwgTUFDIHRhYmxlIHJlZHVj dGlvbiBvbiBDRSBzd2l0Y2hlcywgYWN0aXZlLWFjdGl2ZSBEQyBleGl0IGFuZCBBUlAgdGFibGUg cmVkdWN0aW9uIG9uIERDIGV4aXQgcm91dGVycy4uLg0KDQpFeGFtcGxlcyBvZiBzdWNoIGFwcHJv YWNoIGFyZToNClZpcnR1YWwgU3VibmV0IChodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFm dC14dS12aXJ0dWFsLXN1Ym5ldC0wNikNCkRhdGEgQ2VudGVyIE1vYmlsaXR5IChodHRwOi8vZGF0 YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LXJhZ2dhcndhLWRhdGEtY2VudGVyLW1vYmlsaXR5 KQ0KVkwyKGh0dHA6Ly9yZXNlYXJjaC5taWNyb3NvZnQuY29tL2FwcHMvcHVicy9kZWZhdWx0LmFz cHg/aWQ9ODA2OTMpDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNClhpYW9odQ0KDQq3orz+yMs6IG52bzMtYm91 bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOm52bzMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBNdXJhcmkg U3JpZGhhcmFuDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxMcTqMTDUwjTI1SAxMjo0Mw0KytW8/sjLOiBUaG9tYXMg TmFydGVuOyBudm8zQGlldGYub3JnDQrW98ziOiBSZTogW252bzNdIEwyVlBOIG92ZXJsYXA/DQoN CldoeSBhcmUgd2UgcmVzdHJpY3RpbmcgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gdG8ganVzdCBMMiBvdmVybGF5 cz8gVGhlIHZpcnR1YWwgdG9wb2xvZ3kgY2FuIGJlIEwzIGFzIHdlbGwuDQoNClNlbnQgZnJvbSBt eSBXaW5kb3dzIFBob25lDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KRnJvbTog VGhvbWFzIE5hcnRlbg0KU2VudDogMTAvMy8yMDExIDc6MDQgUE0NClRvOiBudm8zQGlldGYub3Jn DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbbnZvM10gTDJWUE4gb3ZlcmxhcD8NCkZZSSwgYSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIHNv cnRzIHN0YXJ0ZWQgb24gdGhlIEwyVlBOIGxpc3QgYXMgdG8gd2hldGhlciBMMg0Kb3ZlcmxheXMg YXMgcHJvcG9zZWQgZm9yIHRoaXMgbGlzdCBhcmUgYWxyZWFkeSBpbi1zY29wZSBmb3IgdGhlIEwy VlBODQpXRy4NCg0KSS5lLiwgc2VlIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC1hcmNoaXZlL3dl Yi9sMnZwbi9jdXJyZW50L21zZzAyODc0Lmh0bWwNCg0KVGhvbWFzDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KbnZvMyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCm52bzNA aWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbnZvMw0K --Boundary_(ID_nlelq/qHZG+qfIDnAezW/w) Content-type: text/html; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

It is a go= od question.  

 = ;

IMHO, It= =A1=AFs absolutely possible to realize network virtualization in a data cen= ter or across multiple data centers by using L3 overlay, especially host route based IP-only L2VPN service. Host route based IP-only L2VPN ser= vice could also allow the hosts within a give VPN instance to act as if the= y were located within a subnet/LAN except that only IP traffic is supported= . Compared to those MAC forwarding based L2VPN services (i.e., L2 overlay) such as VPLS,  host route bas= ed IP-only L2VPN service does seem a bit restrictive since those legacy non= -IP applications (e.g., link-local multicast, non-IP unicast) would not be = supported. However, host based IP-only L2VPN service has many unique and charming advantages in addressing the sc= aling issues that today=A1=AFs cloud data centers are facing, such as ARP b= roadcast storm reduction, unknown unicast flooding avoidance, MAC table red= uction on CE switches, active-active DC exit and ARP table reduction on DC exit routers...

 = ;

Examples o= f such approach are:

Virtual Su= bnet (http://tools.ietf.org/html/= draft-xu-virtual-subnet-06)

Data Cente= r Mobility (http:/= /datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raggarwa-data-center-mobility)

VL2(http:/= /research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=3D80693)

 = ;

Best regar= ds,

Xiaohu

 = ;

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: nvo3-bo= unces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA= =B1=ED Murari Sridharan
=B7=A2= =CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA10=D4=C24=C8=D5 12:43
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Thomas Narten; nvo3@ietf.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap?

 

Why are we restricting t= he discussion to just L2 overlays? The virtual topology can be L3 as well.<= br>
Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Thomas Narten
Sent: 10/3/2011 7:04 PM
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap?

FYI, a discussion of sorts started on the L2VPN = list as to whether L2
overlays as proposed for this list are already in-scope for the L2VPN
WG.

I.e., see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/current/msg02874.html

Thomas
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/nvo3

--Boundary_(ID_nlelq/qHZG+qfIDnAezW/w)-- From giles.heron@gmail.com Tue Oct 11 01:44:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD6421F8D7B for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:44:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PXPLY9wLuvTs for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABFC21F8D82 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so6563208vcb.31 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:44:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zIDuVj2Hfg1g+kBnOtzMjsZnDTTco95NLsg9OZZ/sxQ=; b=S2smrUx2SRjprF3cQ9XmBa1x8EyUizFB8bMuhPZ3P5ecn0//A55RuGxpn6ajaZFB+H yUr5rzHFq0ohBpfi51qC9pU5jqprJYaBynE06zQ7LWOlC5EZ91UYgsjqVfSAGC8Xm5y7 ya1DTVN/nU09O24BBCxd2xrfxINIfihyhS3Ck= Received: by 10.52.25.75 with SMTP id a11mr17343608vdg.1.1318322672586; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [144.254.30.112] (dhcp-bonn01-vla300-144-254-30-112.cisco.com. [144.254.30.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ie2sm21568344vdb.1.2011.10.11.01.44.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:44:32 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:44:42 +0100 Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyH8gTXGKZx5OC5OUm/PjoqGnlPGg== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:44:49 -0000 This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. The draft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 =20 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group email list.=20 This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. =20 Regards, Giles From giles.heron@gmail.com Tue Oct 11 01:47:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5911521F8D90 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:47:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VpezNTY8Y5UZ for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC62C21F8D83 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so6565359vcb.31 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:47:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uJBbuXP6dJui0rkJY5r6hfeoRUUkt2MIngn5g5Pw2AA=; b=DMmpK8nxwQBOIreDzr02SuKcW0MblaOgoz/aWX1UJaYxLfhve+pscYoVfoVxUcJeMq 1JCTW0SZCpT1va5oatPzAsKNxuCEX4sMckTN7On4Z/kA87XeyUX9QjcRY1PTw0Ddaje0 Pbxb4rruGj68TKvIt4gLHkAbq1fN0SVSUIWE0= Received: by 10.52.65.205 with SMTP id z13mr17083311vds.87.1318322870217; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [144.254.30.112] (dhcp-bonn01-vla300-144-254-30-112.cisco.com. [144.254.30.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fc4sm21557748vdc.8.2011.10.11.01.47.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:47:48 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:47:54 +0100 Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Thread-Index: AcyH8ndIpgG6C790mUiXOfBN9ZfVDQ== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:47:53 -0000 This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft =B3VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges=B2. The draft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 =20 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group email list.=20 This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. =20 Regards, Giles From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Oct 11 02:06:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDBB421F8BE7 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:06:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lZql4KpZPubp for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2784721F8C07 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p9B94Bgx022041 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:06:39 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:06:33 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:06:35 +0200 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyH8gTXGKZx5OC5OUm/PjoqGnlPGgAAwsmg Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671ADD990B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:06:44 -0000 support -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 10:45 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. The draft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 =20 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group email list.=20 This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. =20 Regards, Giles From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Oct 11 02:07:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C66F621F8C07 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:07:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MK3aQypKV79Y for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D6A21F8BE7 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p9B95m89024001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:07:45 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:07:22 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:07:24 +0200 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Thread-Index: AcyH8ndIpgG6C790mUiXOfBN9ZfVDQAAqaTQ Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671ADD990D@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:07:49 -0000 support -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 10:48 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft =B3VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges=B2. The draft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 =20 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group email list.=20 This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. =20 Regards, Giles From william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Tue Oct 11 08:23:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF8721F8E26 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:23:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hu2NjPIDvMTg for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr5.networksolutionsemail.com (omr5.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.55]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05FF21F8DEA for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr10 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr5.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p9BFNfq9012969 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:23:43 -0400 X-Authenticated-IP: 205.178.146.50 Received: from [205.178.146.50] ([205.178.146.50:59312] helo=webmail22) by cm-omr10 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTP id A7/2B-03335-C7F549E4; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:23:40 -0400 Received: from 77.67.108.13 (william.zayas@fibercrossing.net [77.67.108.13]) by webmail22 (Netsol 11.2.30) with WEBMAIL id 15975; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:23:40 +0000 From: william.zayas@fibercrossing.net To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" , "Giles Heron" , l2vpn@ietf.org Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: X-Mailer: Network Solutions Webmail, Build 11.2.30 X-Originating-IP: [77.67.108.13] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:23:40 +0000 Subject: Re: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--=_vm_0011_W465768342_15975_1318346620" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:23:52 -0000 ----=_vm_0011_W465768342_15975_1318346620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support. rgds, wz -----Original Message----- From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 05:07 AM To: 'Giles Heron', l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 support -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l= 2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober = 2011 10:48 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb= -vpls-interop-02 This is the start of a two-week working group last call = on the draft =B3VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges=B2. = The draft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pb= b-vpls-interop-02 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L= 2VPN working group email list. This WG last call will close on Tuesday Oc= tober 25th 2011. Regards, Giles ----=_vm_0011_W465768342_15975_1318346620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 

Support.

 

 

rgds,

 

wz 

 
-----Ori= ginal Message-----
From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.hend= erickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 05:0= 7 AM
To: 'Giles Heron', l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: L= ast call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02

support -= ----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-boun= ces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 10:4= 8 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-int= erop-02 This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the dr= aft =B3VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges=B2. The draft= can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-in= terop-02 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN work= ing group email list. This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25t= h 2011. Regards, Giles
----=_vm_0011_W465768342_15975_1318346620-- From paul@unbehagen.net Tue Oct 11 08:29:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D6F21F8E59 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:29:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSAAT7kM6mXi for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D917821F8E4D for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so10776995iab.31 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.244.137 with SMTP id lq9mr26866374icb.28.1318346983423; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.57] (c-67-161-144-217.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [67.161.144.217]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 2sm56362004ibf.0.2011.10.11.08.29.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:29:41 -0700 (PDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-F6269263-8AEB-4E69-9BF4-284E85FD290F Message-Id: <1101DB98-D8DD-4983-968B-9A05F8FBC481@unbehagen.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A5313e) From: Paul Unbehagen Subject: Re: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:29:38 -0600 To: "william.zayas@fibercrossing.net" Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:29:44 -0000 --Apple-Mail-F6269263-8AEB-4E69-9BF4-284E85FD290F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Support -- Paul Unbehagen=20 On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:23 AM, william.zayas@fibercrossing.net wrote: > =20 > Support. >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > rgds, >=20 > =20 >=20 > wz=20 >=20 > =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 05:07 AM > To: 'Giles Heron', l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 >=20 > support -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2= vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011= 10:48 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-i= nterop-02 This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the dra= ft =C2=B3VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges=C2=B2. The dra= ft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-int= erop-02 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working g= roup email list. This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. R= egards, Giles --Apple-Mail-F6269263-8AEB-4E69-9BF4-284E85FD290F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Support

--
Paul Unbehagen 


On Oct 11, 20= 11, at 9:23 AM, william.z= ayas@fibercrossing.net wrote:

 

Support.

 

 

rgds,

 

wz 

 
=
-----Origi= nal Message-----
From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderick= x@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 05:07 AM
= To: 'Giles Heron', l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02=

support -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.= org] On Behalf Of Giles Heron Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 10:48 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last call for draft-= ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 This is the start of a two-week working group= last call on the draft =C2=B3VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone B= ridges=C2=B2. The draft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie= tf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Please, review the draft and send any comme= nts to the L2VPN working group email list. This WG last call will close on T= uesday October 25th 2011. Regards, Giles
= --Apple-Mail-F6269263-8AEB-4E69-9BF4-284E85FD290F-- From sajassi@cisco.com Tue Oct 11 08:32:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D820921F8E2A for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id psuZ19WP6PWX for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FA121F8DFB for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; l=717; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318347172; x=1319556772; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=2gpIUXNaBLS1uaF1/aWnVgkylgF/vyjF4f9R6iFKzFY=; b=FCGpsSw3m1k5iQ5Vi5/D4VnwE2BDgpqdkSBqtbwsBxiBooPyKs0pE5/5 TmIs0ZFou2eUmHiKB4WkFtwsMoBq739GMwq4y0qgZqeWXiayy3sElveiS MIwdwud4QlX66x6jjnxu0mI7Bx5uwQ+EpLVY7pSHyUI8HGMzD80xgotyP w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnkAADJhlE6Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABDmQSPJIEFgVMBAQEEEgEKE1UEAgEIEQQBAQsGFwEGAUUJCAEBBAESCBqHY5ooAZ5bhmthBIdPMJEnjEE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,523,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="792132" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2011 15:32:51 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9BFWmTN000606; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:51 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.68]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:49 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:49 -0700 Message-ID: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB498@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyH8gTXGKZx5OC5OUm/PjoqGnlPGgANzWmA References: From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Giles Heron" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2011 15:32:49.0490 (UTC) FILETIME=[08866B20:01CC882B] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:54 -0000 support > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Giles Heron > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:45 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft > =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. >=20 > The draft can be found at: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 >=20 > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working > group > email list. >=20 > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. >=20 > Regards, > Giles >=20 From sajassi@cisco.com Tue Oct 11 08:32:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD8221F8E2A for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33-Y7KagxVrX for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA4A21F8E1A for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; l=713; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318347173; x=1319556773; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=SDg+GrrqzGbzQBcB7j3wsne5kxwtjTa8VcrIfC5/mtM=; b=aKa2KprXdXx04Tcf5451Co2q2aoDSmrnTb+9eb3fmiKcqQ4L4kYyYCnb UltgfpE7Aoo8+6fhIFVUtgngjEeWOE1cEsjpmF8CfZTocD48aXqM6xl8j xU3/rO4yn5sl4elGxy1jaFvZvffotbZ6eMXkcHhBIHqV0eL8MNOdbP16Y c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnkAADJhlE6Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABDmQSPJIEFgVMBAQEEEgEKE1UEAgEIEQQBAQsGFwEGAUUJCAEBBAESCBqHY5ooAZ5bhmthBIdPMJEnjEE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,523,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="792133" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2011 15:32:52 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9BFWmTP000606; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:52 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.68]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:49 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:32:49 -0700 Message-ID: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB499@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Thread-Index: AcyH8ndIpgG6C790mUiXOfBN9ZfVDQANuOiw References: From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Giles Heron" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2011 15:32:49.0756 (UTC) FILETIME=[08AF01C0:01CC882B] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:54 -0000 support > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Giles Heron > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:48 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 >=20 > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft > =B3VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges=B2. >=20 > The draft can be found at: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 >=20 > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working > group > email list. >=20 > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. >=20 > Regards, > Giles >=20 From shtsuchi@cisco.com Tue Oct 11 08:44:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DE021F8E9E for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:44:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.944 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.944 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.655, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GFQi2-ObLp5e for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AE821F8E9C for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shtsuchi@cisco.com; l=484; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318347872; x=1319557472; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0mhw0iz+AEB+oSm3Tl7plDYXSCzR/w8h70MNSMGYY/8=; b=Mchn/ArpENI4gT+tX5czIjJoowVQKsVXxrLV2lLk0jQK/CkPYP3/6ifC OimG1XwVTFv9N14PaESgNgTIhVgOZEpfs0mmmoZN0cbSJiv8HzeQdkKpr ycs9kM/+hfU+7y4SL5rMEtHMyQk0GyCdvGvTk5eSHMtkI/76DAaKbv92u s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAIljlE6tJXG//2dsb2JhbABDhHWjM4EFgVMBAQEEEgEKBg8BBUABEAsYAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGDQEHAQEeh2OaGwGMR5IUgSyFDIEUBId9i3iFKIw5 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,524,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="27569938" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2011 15:44:32 +0000 Received: from [10.82.232.185] (rtp-vpn5-185.cisco.com [10.82.232.185]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9BFiU6i022561; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:44:31 GMT Message-ID: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:44:30 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Giles Heron Subject: Re: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:44:33 -0000 support! (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft > ³Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging². > > The draft can be found at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group > email list. > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > Regards, > Giles > > From david.i.allan@ericsson.com Tue Oct 11 10:17:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D620A21F8EE5 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:17:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f215rAuwvqf8 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0A421F8E8D for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p9BHHSKM008139; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:17:56 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.120]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:17:54 -0400 From: David Allan I To: Giles Heron Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:17:53 -0400 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQ Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:17:59 -0000 Hi: For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a critical compo= nent. IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than bridging S-compone= nts, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in PBB and what this docu= ment is almost totally silent on is in how I-components map per S-tag BU tr= affic to I-SID specific reserved multicast MAC addresses, and how MAC filte= ring is used within the B-tag. This is how much finer broadcast containment= of customer VLANs is performed vs. simply using B-tags.=20 This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives some clue as t= o why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section 6. For the document to have utility, this should be called out. Please conside= r this a formal LC comment. My 2 cents Dave (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft=20 > =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. > > The draft can be found at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working=20 > group email list. > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > Regards, > Giles > > From sajassi@cisco.com Tue Oct 11 10:46:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F9AF21F8E08 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:46:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fFJzuSMhfcWn for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D1CF21F8DFF for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:46:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; l=2394; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318355182; x=1319564782; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=GyH2+6HnfFNGV1BsLq33woC7PtcqJrd7wxLrQBDb35Y=; b=SrJ+iugmDTaX7LcY+EQvIwAeCDnxzocpSqYFcflHChy2ylz97BdRVkVA Y4mZmHVilVbflPNh5uao9cEZNEDva0+3Mo93yRQHp9RKwPgFX5QO8Aq6q iuGFfqj6J0rmjKhE9hzvWg+/OobP8IHFSgJgRWakxMwR5f6OlgopusDgn E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnkAAK5/lE5Io8UQ/2dsb2JhbABDmQaPJIEFgVMBAQEEEgEKE0kMBAIBCBEEAQEBCgYXAQYBRQkIAQEEARIIGodjmgMBnleGa2EEh08wkSeMQQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,524,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="800173" Received: from bgl-core-1.cisco.com ([72.163.197.16]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2011 17:46:19 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9BHk6au004532; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:46:18 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.68]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:46:12 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:46:11 -0700 Message-ID: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQAAD51GA= References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "David Allan I" , "Giles Heron" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2011 17:46:12.0473 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAACB690:01CC883D] Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:46:23 -0000 Hi Dave, One of point that this draft is making is that bridging S-component in = VPLS IS different than bridging B-component in PBB-VPLS with respect to = PE model. In VPLS/H-VPLS, an S-VLAN is mapped to a group of PWs - e.g., = a group of PWs represent a VLAN emulation and it is associated with a = broadcast domain (associated with a VLAN). However, in PBB-VPLS, a PW = represents a logical interface and thus it is treated as an interface to = the B-component and thus enables us to run bridging protocol such as = MMRP over such interface for multicast optimization. I think your point is that the section 6 needs to articulate this better = and I agree and we will expand it a bit more in the next rev. Cheers, Ali=09 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of David Allan I > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:18 AM > To: Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi: >=20 > For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a critical > component. >=20 > IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than bridging S- > components, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in PBB and > what this document is almost totally silent on is in how I-components > map per S-tag BU traffic to I-SID specific reserved multicast MAC > addresses, and how MAC filtering is used within the B-tag. This is how > much finer broadcast containment of customer VLANs is performed vs. > simply using B-tags. >=20 > This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives some clue > as to why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section 6. >=20 > For the document to have utility, this should be called out. Please > consider this a formal LC comment. >=20 > My 2 cents > Dave >=20 >=20 > (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft > > =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. > > > > The draft can be found at: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working > > group email list. > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > > > Regards, > > Giles > > > > From david.i.allan@ericsson.com Tue Oct 11 11:00:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57B221F8F84 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:00:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uPXGzu-Bwpkj for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345DA21F8F7A for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9BI0Chv000518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:00:13 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.120]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:00:11 -0400 From: David Allan I To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , Giles Heron Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:00:08 -0400 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQAAD51GAAALK6IA== Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:00:16 -0000 Hi Ali: I was more interested in some mention of how bridging overlayed on the B-MA= C layer worked in the packet walkthrough in section 4 as that seemed rather= thin on IMO a key point. As otherwise the behaviour is directly analogous = to bridging an S-tag even if a B-tag was an aggregate of S-tags... (e.g. a = VPN of VPNs...) A bit of elaboration in section 6 I would consider to be a bonus. ;-) Dave =20 -----Original Message----- From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:46 AM To: David Allan I; Giles Heron Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Hi Dave, One of point that this draft is making is that bridging S-component in VPLS= IS different than bridging B-component in PBB-VPLS with respect to PE mode= l. In VPLS/H-VPLS, an S-VLAN is mapped to a group of PWs - e.g., a group of= PWs represent a VLAN emulation and it is associated with a broadcast domai= n (associated with a VLAN). However, in PBB-VPLS, a PW represents a logical= interface and thus it is treated as an interface to the B-component and th= us enables us to run bridging protocol such as MMRP over such interface for= multicast optimization. I think your point is that the section 6 needs to articulate this better an= d I agree and we will expand it a bit more in the next rev. Cheers, Ali=09 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf=20 > Of David Allan I > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:18 AM > To: Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi: >=20 > For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a critical=20 > component. >=20 > IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than bridging S-=20 > components, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in PBB and=20 > what this document is almost totally silent on is in how I-components=20 > map per S-tag BU traffic to I-SID specific reserved multicast MAC=20 > addresses, and how MAC filtering is used within the B-tag. This is how=20 > much finer broadcast containment of customer VLANs is performed vs. > simply using B-tags. >=20 > This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives some clue=20 > as to why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section 6. >=20 > For the document to have utility, this should be called out. Please=20 > consider this a formal LC comment. >=20 > My 2 cents > Dave >=20 >=20 > (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft=20 > > =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. > > > > The draft can be found at: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working=20 > > group email list. > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > > > Regards, > > Giles > > > > From sajassi@cisco.com Tue Oct 11 11:11:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F26F21F8DC9 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:11:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6b7g2t3UOMw8 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F8121F8DC1 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:11:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; l=3821; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318356676; x=1319566276; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=32qLzm+mgpt64LY17qq0yKzy0GD8TkYCIGkA8XXm37M=; b=RrouhUMkIkhJT8bPjd0aCFf+v3FX5KhrKMbUttFjxkX6e/JnQ3ha6hJp y0AhC322MXXDcZr/BuGMQMS4cEGPRG3tL6oh7oHB0CV53UxICCDBOTW1o AZgXpTIVj//VT3p7YZ3kke8RS+1gvK52gL6LKn9BFGXBcOcwDGVHEkpBw g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnkAAKaGlE6tJV2c/2dsb2JhbABDmQiPJIEFgVMBAQEDARIBChNJBQcEAgEIEQQBAQEKBhcBBgFFCQgBAQQBEggah1wHmgEBnluGa2EEh08wkSeMQQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,524,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="27616723" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2011 18:11:03 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9BIB2cN009240; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:11:03 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.68]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:11:00 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:10:57 -0700 Message-ID: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB5CB@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQAAD51GAAALK6IAAAcz2Q References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "David Allan I" , "Giles Heron" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2011 18:11:00.0614 (UTC) FILETIME=[21AD0260:01CC8841] Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:11:17 -0000 Hi Dave, We cannot do a PBB tutorial here because it is outside of the scope; = however, we can elaborate how customer mcast traffic is encapsulated and = how they can be replicated efficiently because of the PBB-VPLS PE model = and applying MMRP over PWs (that act as logical interfaces).=20 Cheers, Ali > -----Original Message----- > From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:00 AM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi Ali: >=20 > I was more interested in some mention of how bridging overlayed on the > B-MAC layer worked in the packet walkthrough in section 4 as that > seemed rather thin on IMO a key point. As otherwise the behaviour is > directly analogous to bridging an S-tag even if a B-tag was an > aggregate of S-tags... (e.g. a VPN of VPNs...) >=20 > A bit of elaboration in section 6 I would consider to be a bonus. ;-) >=20 > Dave >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:46 AM > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi Dave, >=20 > One of point that this draft is making is that bridging S-component in > VPLS IS different than bridging B-component in PBB-VPLS with respect = to > PE model. In VPLS/H-VPLS, an S-VLAN is mapped to a group of PWs - = e.g., > a group of PWs represent a VLAN emulation and it is associated with a > broadcast domain (associated with a VLAN). However, in PBB-VPLS, a PW > represents a logical interface and thus it is treated as an interface > to the B-component and thus enables us to run bridging protocol such = as > MMRP over such interface for multicast optimization. >=20 > I think your point is that the section 6 needs to articulate this > better and I agree and we will expand it a bit more in the next rev. >=20 > Cheers, > Ali >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > > Of David Allan I > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:18 AM > > To: Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Hi: > > > > For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a = critical > > component. > > > > IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than bridging S- > > components, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in PBB and > > what this document is almost totally silent on is in how = I-components > > map per S-tag BU traffic to I-SID specific reserved multicast MAC > > addresses, and how MAC filtering is used within the B-tag. This is > how > > much finer broadcast containment of customer VLANs is performed vs. > > simply using B-tags. > > > > This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives some > clue > > as to why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section 6. > > > > For the document to have utility, this should be called out. Please > > consider this a formal LC comment. > > > > My 2 cents > > Dave > > > > > > (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the > draft > > > =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. > > > > > > The draft can be found at: > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN = working > > > group email list. > > > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Giles > > > > > > From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Oct 11 11:16:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4864F21F8EC7 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nDgPf3T6+yoF for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 959C521F8EC2 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9BIGk6o024473 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:16:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9BIFbRe007926 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:16:46 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:16:35 -0500 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: David Allan I , "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , Giles Heron Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:16:33 -0500 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQAAD51GAAALK6IAAAalUA Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73662C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:16:51 -0000 Hi Dave, Based on previous comments we chose to focus the current text only on the d= eltas from IEEE docs (specifically IEEE 802.1ah): i.e. the I-component brid= ging procedures are very well described in IEEE 802.1ah. Also PBB-VPLS interop draft - see the other LC - has some level of details= on the S-tag Interop piece. If something is missing though we can consider updating the text in one of = the two drafts. Feel free to send us some suggested text for the two sectio= ns... Thanks, Florin > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > David Allan I > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:00 AM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi Ali: >=20 > I was more interested in some mention of how bridging overlayed on the B-= MAC > layer worked in the packet walkthrough in section 4 as that seemed rather= thin > on IMO a key point. As otherwise the behaviour is directly analogous to b= ridging > an S-tag even if a B-tag was an aggregate of S-tags... (e.g. a VPN of VPN= s...) >=20 > A bit of elaboration in section 6 I would consider to be a bonus. ;-) >=20 > Dave >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:46 AM > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi Dave, >=20 > One of point that this draft is making is that bridging S-component in VP= LS IS > different than bridging B-component in PBB-VPLS with respect to PE model.= In > VPLS/H-VPLS, an S-VLAN is mapped to a group of PWs - e.g., a group of PWs > represent a VLAN emulation and it is associated with a broadcast domain > (associated with a VLAN). However, in PBB-VPLS, a PW represents a logical > interface and thus it is treated as an interface to the B-component and t= hus > enables us to run bridging protocol such as MMRP over such interface for > multicast optimization. >=20 > I think your point is that the section 6 needs to articulate this better = and I agree > and we will expand it a bit more in the next rev. >=20 > Cheers, > Ali >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of David Allan I > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:18 AM > > To: Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Hi: > > > > For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a critical > > component. > > > > IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than bridging S- > > components, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in PBB and > > what this document is almost totally silent on is in how I-components > > map per S-tag BU traffic to I-SID specific reserved multicast MAC > > addresses, and how MAC filtering is used within the B-tag. This is how > > much finer broadcast containment of customer VLANs is performed vs. > > simply using B-tags. > > > > This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives some clue > > as to why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section 6. > > > > For the document to have utility, this should be called out. Please > > consider this a formal LC comment. > > > > My 2 cents > > Dave > > > > > > (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft > > > =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. > > > > > > The draft can be found at: > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working > > > group email list. > > > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Giles > > > > > > From david.i.allan@ericsson.com Tue Oct 11 11:56:59 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F74321F8F50 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:56:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hCBJns0wujdl for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B100821F8F78 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p9BIucfM032320; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:56:47 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.120]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:56:38 -0400 From: David Allan I To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" , "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , Giles Heron Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:56:37 -0400 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQAAD51GAAALK6IAAAalUAAADk4MA= Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEAB6@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73662C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73662C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:56:59 -0000 Well, at the risk of being pedantic, right now you are sort of half pregnan= t.... Section 4 describes a chunk of how a B-component behaves, with the proviso = that some arbitrary bundle of virtual interfaces need to be treated like a = single interface from the POV of split horizon but without invalidating lea= rning of B-MAC to PW bindings unique to each PW. And goes further to discus= s the decapsulation performed by I-components. IMO everything beyond how a = PW bundle is treated by a B-component has already crossed a line if the goa= l is to discuss deltas from IEEE docs. So it is either overkill from the "this is not a tutorial" point of view as= the only requisite statement is about how the B-component needs to treat a= set of PWs (e.g. no different than an S-component would). Or inadequate if= it is to set the stage for any additional functions the B-component/VPLS b= oundary could implement (e.g. MMRP driven filtering)... I actually do not care either way, but if the intent is to set the stage th= en a simple additional of a couple of sentences.=20 "Frames arriving on non-VPLS B-component interfaces are treated as per 802.= 1ah. BU frames from all non-virtual interfaces are flooded on all B-compone= nt interfaces participating in the B-VID the frame is tagged with (with the= exception of the I/F of arrival).=20 Frames arriving from a CE are treated as per 802.1ah and encapsulated accor= dingly, with the key salient feature being that if corresponding I-componen= t cannot resolve a C-MAC to B-MAC binding or the frame is a broadcast or mu= lticast frame, the frame is encapsualted in a well known I-SID specific res= erved multicast MAC address upon which MAC filtering MAY be applied by B-co= mponents. The frame is then forwarded to the B-component where it is treate= d as described above." Would IMO be sufficient...others may express it more succintly than I ;-) Cheers Dave =20 -----Original Message----- From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.co= m]=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:17 AM To: David Allan I; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Hi Dave, Based on previous comments we chose to focus the current text only on the d= eltas from IEEE docs (specifically IEEE 802.1ah): i.e. the I-component brid= ging procedures are very well described in IEEE 802.1ah. Also PBB-VPLS interop draft - see the other LC - has some level of details= on the S-tag Interop piece. If something is missing though we can consider updating the text in one of = the two drafts. Feel free to send us some suggested text for the two sectio= ns... Thanks, Florin > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf=20 > Of David Allan I > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:00 AM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi Ali: >=20 > I was more interested in some mention of how bridging overlayed on the=20 > B-MAC layer worked in the packet walkthrough in section 4 as that=20 > seemed rather thin on IMO a key point. As otherwise the behaviour is=20 > directly analogous to bridging an S-tag even if a B-tag was an=20 > aggregate of S-tags... (e.g. a VPN of VPNs...) >=20 > A bit of elaboration in section 6 I would consider to be a bonus. ;-) >=20 > Dave >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:46 AM > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi Dave, >=20 > One of point that this draft is making is that bridging S-component in=20 > VPLS IS different than bridging B-component in PBB-VPLS with respect=20 > to PE model. In VPLS/H-VPLS, an S-VLAN is mapped to a group of PWs -=20 > e.g., a group of PWs represent a VLAN emulation and it is associated=20 > with a broadcast domain (associated with a VLAN). However, in=20 > PBB-VPLS, a PW represents a logical interface and thus it is treated=20 > as an interface to the B-component and thus enables us to run bridging=20 > protocol such as MMRP over such interface for multicast optimization. >=20 > I think your point is that the section 6 needs to articulate this=20 > better and I agree and we will expand it a bit more in the next rev. >=20 > Cheers, > Ali >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > > Behalf Of David Allan I > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:18 AM > > To: Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Hi: > > > > For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a=20 > > critical component. > > > > IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than bridging S-=20 > > components, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in PBB and=20 > > what this document is almost totally silent on is in how=20 > > I-components map per S-tag BU traffic to I-SID specific reserved=20 > > multicast MAC addresses, and how MAC filtering is used within the=20 > > B-tag. This is how much finer broadcast containment of customer VLANs i= s performed vs. > > simply using B-tags. > > > > This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives some=20 > > clue as to why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section 6. > > > > For the document to have utility, this should be called out. Please=20 > > consider this a formal LC comment. > > > > My 2 cents > > Dave > > > > > > (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the=20 > > > draft =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2= . > > > > > > The draft can be found at: > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN=20 > > > working group email list. > > > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Giles > > > > > > From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Oct 11 17:20:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352F721F8B3B for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:20:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URuJ5ROeQRx9 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE1921F8B3A for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9C0KjkB018137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:20:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9C0Kj6E024700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:20:45 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:20:45 -0500 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: David Allan I , "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , Giles Heron Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:20:43 -0500 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQAAD51GAAALK6IAAAalUAAADk4MAADBpx8A== Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73675A@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73662C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEAB6@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEAB6@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:20:51 -0000 Thanks Dave. See in-line > -----Original Message----- > From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:57 AM > To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Well, at the risk of being pedantic, right now you are sort of half pregn= ant.... >=20 > Section 4 describes a chunk of how a B-component behaves, with the provis= o > that some arbitrary bundle of virtual interfaces need to be treated like = a single > interface from the POV of split horizon but without invalidating learning= of B- > MAC to PW bindings unique to each PW. And goes further to discuss the > decapsulation performed by I-components. IMO everything beyond how a PW > bundle is treated by a B-component has already crossed a line if the goal= is to > discuss deltas from IEEE docs. >=20 > So it is either overkill from the "this is not a tutorial" point of view = as the only > requisite statement is about how the B-component needs to treat a set of = PWs > (e.g. no different than an S-component would). Or inadequate if it is to = set the > stage for any additional functions the B-component/VPLS boundary could > implement (e.g. MMRP driven filtering)... >=20 > I actually do not care either way, but if the intent is to set the stage = then a > simple additional of a couple of sentences. >=20 > "Frames arriving on non-VPLS B-component interfaces are treated as per 80= 2.1ah. > BU frames from all non-virtual interfaces are flooded on all B-component > interfaces participating in the B-VID the frame is tagged with (with the > exception of the I/F of arrival). >=20 > Frames arriving from a CE are treated as per 802.1ah and encapsulated > accordingly, with the key salient feature being that if corresponding I- > component cannot resolve a C-MAC to B-MAC binding or the frame is a broad= cast > or multicast frame, the frame is encapsualted in a well known I-SID speci= fic > reserved multicast MAC address upon which MAC filtering MAY be applied by= B- > components. The frame is then forwarded to the B-component where it is > treated as described above." This looks like IEEE 802.1ah procedure right? Nothing about the PBB-VPLS mo= del in here. I am open to consider adding the text but I do not see the ben= efit. Am I missing something? >=20 > Would IMO be sufficient...others may express it more succintly than I ;-) >=20 > Cheers > Dave >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.= com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:17 AM > To: David Allan I; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi Dave, >=20 > Based on previous comments we chose to focus the current text only on the > deltas from IEEE docs (specifically IEEE 802.1ah): i.e. the I-component b= ridging > procedures are very well described in IEEE 802.1ah. > Also PBB-VPLS interop draft - see the other LC - has some level of detai= ls on the > S-tag Interop piece. >=20 > If something is missing though we can consider updating the text in one o= f the > two drafts. Feel free to send us some suggested text for the two sections= ... >=20 > Thanks, > Florin >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of David Allan I > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:00 AM > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Hi Ali: > > > > I was more interested in some mention of how bridging overlayed on the > > B-MAC layer worked in the packet walkthrough in section 4 as that > > seemed rather thin on IMO a key point. As otherwise the behaviour is > > directly analogous to bridging an S-tag even if a B-tag was an > > aggregate of S-tags... (e.g. a VPN of VPNs...) > > > > A bit of elaboration in section 6 I would consider to be a bonus. ;-) > > > > Dave > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:46 AM > > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > One of point that this draft is making is that bridging S-component in > > VPLS IS different than bridging B-component in PBB-VPLS with respect > > to PE model. In VPLS/H-VPLS, an S-VLAN is mapped to a group of PWs - > > e.g., a group of PWs represent a VLAN emulation and it is associated > > with a broadcast domain (associated with a VLAN). However, in > > PBB-VPLS, a PW represents a logical interface and thus it is treated > > as an interface to the B-component and thus enables us to run bridging > > protocol such as MMRP over such interface for multicast optimization. > > > > I think your point is that the section 6 needs to articulate this > > better and I agree and we will expand it a bit more in the next rev. > > > > Cheers, > > Ali > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > Behalf Of David Allan I > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:18 AM > > > To: Giles Heron > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a > > > critical component. > > > > > > IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than bridging S- > > > components, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in PBB and > > > what this document is almost totally silent on is in how > > > I-components map per S-tag BU traffic to I-SID specific reserved > > > multicast MAC addresses, and how MAC filtering is used within the > > > B-tag. This is how much finer broadcast containment of customer VLANs= is > performed vs. > > > simply using B-tags. > > > > > > This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives some > > > clue as to why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section 6. > > > > > > For the document to have utility, this should be called out. Please > > > consider this a formal LC comment. > > > > > > My 2 cents > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > > > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the > > > > draft =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging= =B2. > > > > > > > > The draft can be found at: > > > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > > > > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN > > > > working group email list. > > > > > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Giles > > > > > > > > From david.i.allan@ericsson.com Tue Oct 11 17:31:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FDAB21F8C9E for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:31:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y0XLf5pJjVz4 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B4121F8C94 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p9C0V1f6025898; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:31:03 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.120]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:31:02 -0400 From: David Allan I To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" , "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , Giles Heron Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:31:00 -0400 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQAAD51GAAALK6IAAAalUAAADk4MAADBpx8AAAMmug Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223E22297@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73662C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEAB6@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73675A@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73675A@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:31:13 -0000 HI Florin: I'm confused as to what hairs you are seeking to split. The document is alr= eady prescriptive on the B-component behavior when some of the interfaces a= re PWs above and beyond what is actually necessary. "A B-component is requi= red to treat a set of PWs this way" is the only statement actually needed i= n place of all of section 4. As section 4 exists and IMO offers minimal utility in its current form, I'm= simply suggesting adding two sentences or so to finish the picture it is a= lready painting instead of pruning down to one requirement.=20 To be consistent it is either-or. Cheers Dave -----Original Message----- From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.co= m]=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:21 PM To: David Allan I; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thanks Dave. See in-line > -----Original Message----- > From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:57 AM > To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Well, at the risk of being pedantic, right now you are sort of half pregn= ant.... >=20 > Section 4 describes a chunk of how a B-component behaves, with the=20 > proviso that some arbitrary bundle of virtual interfaces need to be=20 > treated like a single interface from the POV of split horizon but=20 > without invalidating learning of B- MAC to PW bindings unique to each=20 > PW. And goes further to discuss the decapsulation performed by=20 > I-components. IMO everything beyond how a PW bundle is treated by a=20 > B-component has already crossed a line if the goal is to discuss deltas f= rom IEEE docs. >=20 > So it is either overkill from the "this is not a tutorial" point of=20 > view as the only requisite statement is about how the B-component=20 > needs to treat a set of PWs (e.g. no different than an S-component=20 > would). Or inadequate if it is to set the stage for any additional=20 > functions the B-component/VPLS boundary could implement (e.g. MMRP driven= filtering)... >=20 > I actually do not care either way, but if the intent is to set the=20 > stage then a simple additional of a couple of sentences. >=20 > "Frames arriving on non-VPLS B-component interfaces are treated as per 80= 2.1ah. > BU frames from all non-virtual interfaces are flooded on all=20 > B-component interfaces participating in the B-VID the frame is tagged=20 > with (with the exception of the I/F of arrival). >=20 > Frames arriving from a CE are treated as per 802.1ah and encapsulated=20 > accordingly, with the key salient feature being that if corresponding=20 > I- component cannot resolve a C-MAC to B-MAC binding or the frame is a=20 > broadcast or multicast frame, the frame is encapsualted in a well=20 > known I-SID specific reserved multicast MAC address upon which MAC=20 > filtering MAY be applied by B- components. The frame is then forwarded=20 > to the B-component where it is treated as described above." This looks like IEEE 802.1ah procedure right? Nothing about the PBB-VPLS mo= del in here. I am open to consider adding the text but I do not see the ben= efit. Am I missing something? >=20 > Would IMO be sufficient...others may express it more succintly than I=20 > ;-) >=20 > Cheers > Dave >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)=20 > [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:17 AM > To: David Allan I; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Hi Dave, >=20 > Based on previous comments we chose to focus the current text only on=20 > the deltas from IEEE docs (specifically IEEE 802.1ah): i.e. the=20 > I-component bridging procedures are very well described in IEEE 802.1ah. > Also PBB-VPLS interop draft - see the other LC - has some level of=20 > details on the S-tag Interop piece. >=20 > If something is missing though we can consider updating the text in=20 > one of the two drafts. Feel free to send us some suggested text for the t= wo sections... >=20 > Thanks, > Florin >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > > Behalf Of David Allan I > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:00 AM > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Hi Ali: > > > > I was more interested in some mention of how bridging overlayed on=20 > > the B-MAC layer worked in the packet walkthrough in section 4 as=20 > > that seemed rather thin on IMO a key point. As otherwise the=20 > > behaviour is directly analogous to bridging an S-tag even if a B-tag=20 > > was an aggregate of S-tags... (e.g. a VPN of VPNs...) > > > > A bit of elaboration in section 6 I would consider to be a bonus.=20 > > ;-) > > > > Dave > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:46 AM > > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > One of point that this draft is making is that bridging S-component=20 > > in VPLS IS different than bridging B-component in PBB-VPLS with=20 > > respect to PE model. In VPLS/H-VPLS, an S-VLAN is mapped to a group=20 > > of PWs - e.g., a group of PWs represent a VLAN emulation and it is=20 > > associated with a broadcast domain (associated with a VLAN).=20 > > However, in PBB-VPLS, a PW represents a logical interface and thus=20 > > it is treated as an interface to the B-component and thus enables us=20 > > to run bridging protocol such as MMRP over such interface for multicast= optimization. > > > > I think your point is that the section 6 needs to articulate this=20 > > better and I agree and we will expand it a bit more in the next rev. > > > > Cheers, > > Ali > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > > > Behalf Of David Allan I > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:18 AM > > > To: Giles Heron > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a=20 > > > critical component. > > > > > > IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than bridging=20 > > > S- components, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in PBB=20 > > > and what this document is almost totally silent on is in how=20 > > > I-components map per S-tag BU traffic to I-SID specific reserved=20 > > > multicast MAC addresses, and how MAC filtering is used within the=20 > > > B-tag. This is how much finer broadcast containment of customer=20 > > > VLANs is > performed vs. > > > simply using B-tags. > > > > > > This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives some=20 > > > clue as to why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section 6. > > > > > > For the document to have utility, this should be called out.=20 > > > Please consider this a formal LC comment. > > > > > > My 2 cents > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > > > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the=20 > > > > draft =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging= =B2. > > > > > > > > The draft can be found at: > > > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > > > > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN=20 > > > > working group email list. > > > > > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Giles > > > > > > > > From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Oct 12 14:02:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B156321F8B72 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:02:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E8K3Qs+4h1Ma for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A8B21F8B57 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9CL1wOD022840 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:01:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.112]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9CL17TF031319 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:01:57 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB03.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.112]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:01:38 -0500 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: David Allan I , "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , Giles Heron Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:01:35 -0500 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQAAD51GAAALK6IAAAalUAAADk4MAADBpx8AAAMmugACo4x9A= Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC736938@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73662C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEAB6@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73675A@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223E22297@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223E22297@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:02:02 -0000 Hi Dave, We will wait for the end of LC and will discuss all proposed changes betwee= n co-authors and try to address them. Note though we had a long discussion in L2VPN some time ago about re-using = as much as possible the descriptions in the IEEE specs. Sometimes people ar= e better off reading the entire text in one place (IEEE802.1ah in our case= ) than just getting a portion of it. As a result we took great care to include in section 4 only description rel= ated to PW encapsulation/forwarder: i.e. we pretty much tried to include wo= rding to describe your statement "A B-component is required to treat a set = of PWs this way". But we had to elaborate what "way" means and I thought we= did it succinctly enough. I guess you are saying we elaborated too much he= nce your request. Florin > -----Original Message----- > From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:31 PM > To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > HI Florin: >=20 > I'm confused as to what hairs you are seeking to split. The document is a= lready > prescriptive on the B-component behavior when some of the interfaces are = PWs > above and beyond what is actually necessary. "A B-component is required t= o > treat a set of PWs this way" is the only statement actually needed in pla= ce of all > of section 4. >=20 > As section 4 exists and IMO offers minimal utility in its current form, I= 'm simply > suggesting adding two sentences or so to finish the picture it is already= painting > instead of pruning down to one requirement. >=20 > To be consistent it is either-or. >=20 > Cheers > Dave >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.= com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:21 PM > To: David Allan I; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Thanks Dave. See in-line >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:57 AM > > To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Well, at the risk of being pedantic, right now you are sort of half pre= gnant.... > > > > Section 4 describes a chunk of how a B-component behaves, with the > > proviso that some arbitrary bundle of virtual interfaces need to be > > treated like a single interface from the POV of split horizon but > > without invalidating learning of B- MAC to PW bindings unique to each > > PW. And goes further to discuss the decapsulation performed by > > I-components. IMO everything beyond how a PW bundle is treated by a > > B-component has already crossed a line if the goal is to discuss deltas= from > IEEE docs. > > > > So it is either overkill from the "this is not a tutorial" point of > > view as the only requisite statement is about how the B-component > > needs to treat a set of PWs (e.g. no different than an S-component > > would). Or inadequate if it is to set the stage for any additional > > functions the B-component/VPLS boundary could implement (e.g. MMRP driv= en > filtering)... > > > > I actually do not care either way, but if the intent is to set the > > stage then a simple additional of a couple of sentences. > > > > "Frames arriving on non-VPLS B-component interfaces are treated as per > 802.1ah. > > BU frames from all non-virtual interfaces are flooded on all > > B-component interfaces participating in the B-VID the frame is tagged > > with (with the exception of the I/F of arrival). > > > > Frames arriving from a CE are treated as per 802.1ah and encapsulated > > accordingly, with the key salient feature being that if corresponding > > I- component cannot resolve a C-MAC to B-MAC binding or the frame is a > > broadcast or multicast frame, the frame is encapsualted in a well > > known I-SID specific reserved multicast MAC address upon which MAC > > filtering MAY be applied by B- components. The frame is then forwarded > > to the B-component where it is treated as described above." >=20 > This looks like IEEE 802.1ah procedure right? Nothing about the PBB-VPLS = model > in here. I am open to consider adding the text but I do not see the benef= it. Am I > missing something? > > > > Would IMO be sufficient...others may express it more succintly than I > > ;-) > > > > Cheers > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) > > [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:17 AM > > To: David Allan I; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > Based on previous comments we chose to focus the current text only on > > the deltas from IEEE docs (specifically IEEE 802.1ah): i.e. the > > I-component bridging procedures are very well described in IEEE 802.1ah= . > > Also PBB-VPLS interop draft - see the other LC - has some level of > > details on the S-tag Interop piece. > > > > If something is missing though we can consider updating the text in > > one of the two drafts. Feel free to send us some suggested text for the= two > sections... > > > > Thanks, > > Florin > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > Behalf Of David Allan I > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:00 AM > > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > > > Hi Ali: > > > > > > I was more interested in some mention of how bridging overlayed on > > > the B-MAC layer worked in the packet walkthrough in section 4 as > > > that seemed rather thin on IMO a key point. As otherwise the > > > behaviour is directly analogous to bridging an S-tag even if a B-tag > > > was an aggregate of S-tags... (e.g. a VPN of VPNs...) > > > > > > A bit of elaboration in section 6 I would consider to be a bonus. > > > ;-) > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:46 AM > > > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > One of point that this draft is making is that bridging S-component > > > in VPLS IS different than bridging B-component in PBB-VPLS with > > > respect to PE model. In VPLS/H-VPLS, an S-VLAN is mapped to a group > > > of PWs - e.g., a group of PWs represent a VLAN emulation and it is > > > associated with a broadcast domain (associated with a VLAN). > > > However, in PBB-VPLS, a PW represents a logical interface and thus > > > it is treated as an interface to the B-component and thus enables us > > > to run bridging protocol such as MMRP over such interface for multica= st > optimization. > > > > > > I think your point is that the section 6 needs to articulate this > > > better and I agree and we will expand it a bit more in the next rev. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > Behalf Of David Allan I > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:18 AM > > > > To: Giles Heron > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a > > > > critical component. > > > > > > > > IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than bridging > > > > S- components, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in PBB > > > > and what this document is almost totally silent on is in how > > > > I-components map per S-tag BU traffic to I-SID specific reserved > > > > multicast MAC addresses, and how MAC filtering is used within the > > > > B-tag. This is how much finer broadcast containment of customer > > > > VLANs is > > performed vs. > > > > simply using B-tags. > > > > > > > > This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives some > > > > clue as to why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section 6. > > > > > > > > For the document to have utility, this should be called out. > > > > Please consider this a formal LC comment. > > > > > > > > My 2 cents > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > > > > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the > > > > > draft =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridgin= g=B2. > > > > > > > > > > The draft can be found at: > > > > > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > > > > > > > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN > > > > > working group email list. > > > > > > > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Giles > > > > > > > > > > From david.i.allan@ericsson.com Wed Oct 12 14:24:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4753621F8BF9 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:24:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfOJmgQdSUaP for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C0221F8BEC for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9CLO6He022839 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:24:26 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.120]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:24:19 -0400 From: David Allan I To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" , "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , Giles Heron Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:24:18 -0400 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyILK76vZP2fg2jRumJ2Y2atMXkCAAC1AVQAAD51GAAALK6IAAAalUAAADk4MAADBpx8AAAMmugACo4x9AAAc8+QA== Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223E228BC@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <4E94645E.7080107@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAE9CA@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56081AB595@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEA25@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73662C@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223DAEAB6@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC73675A@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223E22297@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC736938@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC736938@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:24:33 -0000 Ok, great=20 Thanks D -----Original Message----- From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.co= m]=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:02 PM To: David Allan I; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Hi Dave, We will wait for the end of LC and will discuss all proposed changes betwee= n co-authors and try to address them. Note though we had a long discussion in L2VPN some time ago about re-using = as much as possible the descriptions in the IEEE specs. Sometimes people ar= e better off reading the entire text in one place (IEEE802.1ah in our case= ) than just getting a portion of it. As a result we took great care to include in section 4 only description rel= ated to PW encapsulation/forwarder: i.e. we pretty much tried to include wo= rding to describe your statement "A B-component is required to treat a set = of PWs this way". But we had to elaborate what "way" means and I thought we= did it succinctly enough. I guess you are saying we elaborated too much he= nce your request. Florin > -----Original Message----- > From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:31 PM > To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > HI Florin: >=20 > I'm confused as to what hairs you are seeking to split. The document=20 > is already prescriptive on the B-component behavior when some of the=20 > interfaces are PWs above and beyond what is actually necessary. "A=20 > B-component is required to treat a set of PWs this way" is the only=20 > statement actually needed in place of all of section 4. >=20 > As section 4 exists and IMO offers minimal utility in its current=20 > form, I'm simply suggesting adding two sentences or so to finish the=20 > picture it is already painting instead of pruning down to one requirement= . >=20 > To be consistent it is either-or. >=20 > Cheers > Dave >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)=20 > [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 5:21 PM > To: David Allan I; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model >=20 > Thanks Dave. See in-line >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:57 AM > > To: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin); Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles=20 > > Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Well, at the risk of being pedantic, right now you are sort of half pre= gnant.... > > > > Section 4 describes a chunk of how a B-component behaves, with the=20 > > proviso that some arbitrary bundle of virtual interfaces need to be=20 > > treated like a single interface from the POV of split horizon but=20 > > without invalidating learning of B- MAC to PW bindings unique to=20 > > each PW. And goes further to discuss the decapsulation performed by=20 > > I-components. IMO everything beyond how a PW bundle is treated by a=20 > > B-component has already crossed a line if the goal is to discuss=20 > > deltas from > IEEE docs. > > > > So it is either overkill from the "this is not a tutorial" point of=20 > > view as the only requisite statement is about how the B-component=20 > > needs to treat a set of PWs (e.g. no different than an S-component=20 > > would). Or inadequate if it is to set the stage for any additional=20 > > functions the B-component/VPLS boundary could implement (e.g. MMRP=20 > > driven > filtering)... > > > > I actually do not care either way, but if the intent is to set the=20 > > stage then a simple additional of a couple of sentences. > > > > "Frames arriving on non-VPLS B-component interfaces are treated as=20 > > per > 802.1ah. > > BU frames from all non-virtual interfaces are flooded on all=20 > > B-component interfaces participating in the B-VID the frame is=20 > > tagged with (with the exception of the I/F of arrival). > > > > Frames arriving from a CE are treated as per 802.1ah and=20 > > encapsulated accordingly, with the key salient feature being that if=20 > > corresponding > > I- component cannot resolve a C-MAC to B-MAC binding or the frame is=20 > > a broadcast or multicast frame, the frame is encapsualted in a well=20 > > known I-SID specific reserved multicast MAC address upon which MAC=20 > > filtering MAY be applied by B- components. The frame is then=20 > > forwarded to the B-component where it is treated as described above." >=20 > This looks like IEEE 802.1ah procedure right? Nothing about the=20 > PBB-VPLS model in here. I am open to consider adding the text but I do=20 > not see the benefit. Am I missing something? > > > > Would IMO be sufficient...others may express it more succintly than=20 > > I > > ;-) > > > > Cheers > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)=20 > > [mailto:florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:17 AM > > To: David Allan I; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > Based on previous comments we chose to focus the current text only=20 > > on the deltas from IEEE docs (specifically IEEE 802.1ah): i.e. the=20 > > I-component bridging procedures are very well described in IEEE 802.1ah= . > > Also PBB-VPLS interop draft - see the other LC - has some level of=20 > > details on the S-tag Interop piece. > > > > If something is missing though we can consider updating the text in=20 > > one of the two drafts. Feel free to send us some suggested text for=20 > > the two > sections... > > > > Thanks, > > Florin > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > > > Behalf Of David Allan I > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:00 AM > > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Giles Heron > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > > > Hi Ali: > > > > > > I was more interested in some mention of how bridging overlayed on=20 > > > the B-MAC layer worked in the packet walkthrough in section 4 as=20 > > > that seemed rather thin on IMO a key point. As otherwise the=20 > > > behaviour is directly analogous to bridging an S-tag even if a=20 > > > B-tag was an aggregate of S-tags... (e.g. a VPN of VPNs...) > > > > > > A bit of elaboration in section 6 I would consider to be a bonus. > > > ;-) > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:46 AM > > > To: David Allan I; Giles Heron > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > One of point that this draft is making is that bridging=20 > > > S-component in VPLS IS different than bridging B-component in=20 > > > PBB-VPLS with respect to PE model. In VPLS/H-VPLS, an S-VLAN is=20 > > > mapped to a group of PWs - e.g., a group of PWs represent a VLAN=20 > > > emulation and it is associated with a broadcast domain (associated wi= th a VLAN). > > > However, in PBB-VPLS, a PW represents a logical interface and thus=20 > > > it is treated as an interface to the B-component and thus enables=20 > > > us to run bridging protocol such as MMRP over such interface for=20 > > > multicast > optimization. > > > > > > I think your point is that the section 6 needs to articulate this=20 > > > better and I agree and we will expand it a bit more in the next rev. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On=20 > > > > Behalf Of David Allan I > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:18 AM > > > > To: Giles Heron > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model > > > > > > > > Hi: > > > > > > > > For what is largely a tutorial document, IMO it is missing a=20 > > > > critical component. > > > > > > > > IMO bridging B-components over VPLS is no different than=20 > > > > bridging > > > > S- components, done & dusted. The key difference introduced in=20 > > > > PBB and what this document is almost totally silent on is in how=20 > > > > I-components map per S-tag BU traffic to I-SID specific reserved=20 > > > > multicast MAC addresses, and how MAC filtering is used within=20 > > > > the B-tag. This is how much finer broadcast containment of=20 > > > > customer VLANs is > > performed vs. > > > > simply using B-tags. > > > > > > > > This plays into the packet walkthrough description and gives=20 > > > > some clue as to why specific references (e.g. MMRP) are in section = 6. > > > > > > > > For the document to have utility, this should be called out. > > > > Please consider this a formal LC comment. > > > > > > > > My 2 cents > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > (2011/10/11 17:44), Giles Heron wrote: > > > > > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the=20 > > > > > draft =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridgin= g=B2. > > > > > > > > > > The draft can be found at: > > > > > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model- > > > > > 04 > > > > > > > > > > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN=20 > > > > > working group email list. > > > > > > > > > > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Giles > > > > > > > > > > From xuxiaohu@huawei.com Thu Oct 13 03:10:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689DB21F8B9F for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.777 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.777 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.822, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OT2qD0VvqGAp for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F5721F8B9C for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LT00008R1GQLH@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:07:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LT0002QP1GQ22@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:07:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AEF29586; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:07:38 +0800 Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:07:32 +0800 Received: from SZXEML525-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.181]) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.91]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:07:31 +0800 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:07:31 +0000 From: Xuxiaohu Subject: re: New Version Notification for draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-02.txt X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.66] To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Message-id: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE738BBF@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: New Version Notification for draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-02.txt Thread-index: AQHMiYet5rpWW5C4pUyda+DSAnpk7JV6D0FA X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:10:35 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpUaGUgdXBkYXRlZCB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIElTLUlTIFZQTFMgKGh0dHA6Ly90b29s cy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXh1LWwydnBuLXZwbHMtaXNpcy0wMikgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3Vi bWl0dGVkLg0KDQpNYWpvciBjaGFuZ2VzIGluY2x1ZGU6DQoxKSB1c2UgdGhlIHNhbWUgTVBMUyBs YWJlbCBjYXJyaWVkIGluIHRoZSBJUy1JUyBWUExTIFRMViBmb3IgYm90aCBkb3duc3RyZWFtIGFu ZCB1cHN0cmVhbSBhc3NpZ25lZCBsYWJlbCAoZm9yIGFnZ3JlZ2F0aXZlIFAtbXVsdGljYXN0IHRy ZWUgbW9kZSkuDQoyKSByZXVzZSB0aGUgTUFDLXJlYWNoYWJpbGl0eSBUTFYgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBS RkM2MTY1IHRvIGFubm91bmNlIE1BQyByb3V0ZSBvbiB0aGUgY29udHJvbCBwbGFuZS4NCg0KQW55 IGNvbW1lbnRzIGFyZSB3ZWxjb21lLg0KDQpCUiwNClhpYW9odQ0KDQo+IC0tLS0t6YKu5Lu25Y6f 5Lu2LS0tLS0NCj4g5Y+R5Lu25Lq6OiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpp bnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQo+IOWPkemAgeaXtumXtDogMjAxMeW5tDEw5pyIMTPm l6UgMTc6MDgNCj4g5pS25Lu25Lq6OiBYdXhpYW9odQ0KPiDmioTpgIE6IGhzaGFoQGNpZW5hLmNv bTsgWHV4aWFvaHUNCj4g5Li76aKYOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0 LXh1LWwydnBuLXZwbHMtaXNpcy0wMi50eHQNCj4gDQo+IEEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBk cmFmdC14dS1sMnZwbi12cGxzLWlzaXMtMDIudHh0IGhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseQ0KPiBz dWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgWGlhb2h1IFh1IGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4N Cj4gDQo+IEZpbGVuYW1lOgkgZHJhZnQteHUtbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1pc2lzDQo+IFJldmlzaW9uOgkg MDINCj4gVGl0bGU6CQkgVmlydHVhbCBQcml2YXRlIExBTiBTZXJ2aWNlIChWUExTKSBVc2luZyBJ Uy1JUw0KPiBDcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlOgkgMjAxMS0xMC0xMw0KPiBXRyBJRDoJCSBJbmRpdmlkdWFs IFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NCj4gTnVtYmVyIG9mIHBhZ2VzOiAxMA0KPiANCj4gQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQo+ICAg IFRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgZGVzY3JpYmVzIGEgbGlnaHQtd2VpZ2h0IFZpcnR1YWwgUHJpdmF0ZSBM QU4gU2VydmljZQ0KPiAgICAoVlBMUykgd2hpY2ggdXNlcyBJUy1JUyBmb3IgYXV0by1kaXNjb3Zl cnkgYW5kIHNpZ25hbGluZy4NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRh cmlhdA0K From narten@us.ibm.com Thu Oct 13 07:36:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCE121F84D9; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:36:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YpLlA4jshRcr; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com (e7.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE9121F8797; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (d01relay01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.233]) by e7.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p9DDEbdv015015; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:14:37 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay01.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p9DEa8Cn143116; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:36:10 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p9DEa51W017547; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:36:05 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-137-89.mts.ibm.com [9.76.137.89]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p9DEa39E017196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:36:03 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p9DEa2Ej006983; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:36:02 -0400 Message-Id: <201110131436.p9DEa2Ej006983@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: nvo3@ietf.org Subject: Network Overlays in Taipai Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:36:02 -0400 From: Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:36:14 -0000 Hi. I've been informed that we will be having a session on network overlays at the Taipai meeting. After a discussion with the ADs, the nvo3 work area has been deemed to already fit within the scope of the l2vpn WG. Although this is a new work area in some sense, we will not need to have a separate BOF as is the normal sequence when trying to create a WG. The L2VPN WG will have two sessions in Taipai, one of which will be dedicated to the topic of network overlays. I don't know yet which day that session will be, as the draft schedule has not been published yet. I will be organizing the session. So if you'd like to present during the session, please let me know. And if you want to submit an ID on the topic, the deadlines are: * 2011-10-24 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission by 17:00 PT (00:00 UTC), upload using IETF ID Submission Tool. * 2011-10-31 (Monday): Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT (00:00 UTC), upload using IETF ID Submission Tool. Further discussion should move to the L2VPN list (some already has). Those of you not already on the l2vpn list can subscribe here: General Discussion: l2vpn@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/current/maillist.html I'm looking forward to a productive discussion! Thomas From narten@us.ibm.com Thu Oct 13 14:11:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFEA21F8ABD for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:11:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.044 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.555, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5YY6hwIjwet8 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (e2.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D08A21F8A64 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by us.ibm.com with XMail ESMTP for from ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:09:10 -0400 Received: from d01relay07.pok.ibm.com ([9.56.227.147]) by us.ibm.com ([192.168.1.102]) with XMail ESMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:08:39 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay07.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p9DL8ZoZ2650358; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:08:35 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p9DL8Vbn030076; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:08:32 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-137-89.mts.ibm.com [9.76.137.89]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p9DL8Vb2030032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:08:31 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p9DL8Ukl010058; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:08:30 -0400 Message-Id: <201110132108.p9DL8Ukl010058@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: nvo3@ietf.org, l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nvo3] Network Overlays in Taipai In-reply-to: <201110131436.p9DEa2Ej006983@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <201110131436.p9DEa2Ej006983@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Narten message dated "Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:36:02 -0400." Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:08:30 -0400 From: Thomas Narten x-cbid: 11101321-5112-0000-0000-000000FE865D X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:11:33 -0000 Just as an FYI, the intial Taipai schedule is out at http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/82/ L2VPN has two slots: Monday, 1PM Thursday, 9AM We'll have to coordinate with the L2VPN chairs as to which slot will cover overlays. That said, I've been warned already by the ADs (and long-time IETFers know this) that this is an initial schedule, and will likely change (this is often the case with IETF agendas). So for those planning on attending, the safest thing to do would be to plan on being in Taipai M-F. Either or both of these sessions could still be moved in order to accomodate general scheduling issues (including to Friday!!!). Thomas From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Thu Oct 13 14:39:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7139F21F8B26 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:39:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hC0Y2LRJ6jaS for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3159E21F8AD9 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.144] (static-72-71-250-38.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFD91EDF7C5 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:34:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Nadeau Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Software Defined Networks (SDN) BoF in Taipei Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:34:00 -0400 Message-Id: <1E1D489E-E959-4CBC-8BA2-0626EC3288AE@lucidvision.com> To: l2vpn@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:39:51 -0000 As an FYI, the initial schedule is out. The SDN BoF is planned = for Thursday afternoon from 1520-1720 in room 201 DEF. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/82/ As usual, caveat emptor in that this is the initial schedule = which often changes. Please plan on being there M-F in case the = schedule changes. --Tom From narten@us.ibm.com Thu Oct 13 16:52:10 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B17121F8AAC; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:52:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rFvh4WjbJrPh; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (e38.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA4321F8AA9; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e38.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p9DNhiuQ003954; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:43:44 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p9DNq4hg066350; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:52:04 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p9DNq3cB003368; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:52:03 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-226-110.mts.ibm.com [9.65.226.110]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p9DNq1Vj003294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:52:02 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.12.5) with ESMTP id p9DNq0Tm013078; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:52:01 -0400 Message-Id: <201110132352.p9DNq0Tm013078@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: david.black@emc.com Subject: Re: [nvo3] Network Overlays in Taipei In-reply-to: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058CFE62B2@MX14A.corp.emc.com> References: <201110131436.p9DEa2Ej006983@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <201110132108.p9DL8Ukl010058@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058CFE62B2@MX14A.corp.emc.com> Comments: In-reply-to message dated "Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:47:12 -0400." Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:52:00 -0400 From: Thomas Narten Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:52:10 -0000 > For the current schedule, Monday 1p is the same slot as armd, which > has a significant overlap of interest with nvo3, so Thursday, 9a > would probably be a better choice. Indeed, that is a problem. Thanks for pointing it out. Thomas From david.black@emc.com Thu Oct 13 16:49:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED13821F8B50; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8mPVZgvoc9IZ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EE2A21F85EF; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI02.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.55]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p9DNnNHH020953 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:49:23 -0400 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.251]) by hop04-l1d11-si02.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:49:11 -0400 Received: from mxhub34.corp.emc.com (mxhub34.corp.emc.com [10.254.93.82]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p9DNjvej031180; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:49:10 -0400 Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.78]) by mxhub34.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:47:14 -0400 From: To: , , Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:47:12 -0400 Subject: RE: [nvo3] Network Overlays in Taipei Thread-Topic: [nvo3] Network Overlays in Taipei Thread-Index: AcyJ7Mc/jBV7IPIGSny5ospKx9HQFAAFWc3w Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058CFE62B2@MX14A.corp.emc.com> References: <201110131436.p9DEa2Ej006983@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <201110132108.p9DL8Ukl010058@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201110132108.p9DL8Ukl010058@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:54:48 -0700 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:49:25 -0000 Thomas, For the current schedule, Monday 1p is the same slot as armd, which has a s= ignificant overlap of interest with nvo3, so Thursday, 9a would probably be a better c= hoice. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: nvo3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of T= homas Narten > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:09 PM > To: nvo3@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [nvo3] Network Overlays in Taipai >=20 > Just as an FYI, the intial Taipai schedule is out at > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/82/ >=20 > L2VPN has two slots: >=20 > Monday, 1PM > Thursday, 9AM >=20 > We'll have to coordinate with the L2VPN chairs as to which slot will > cover overlays. >=20 > That said, I've been warned already by the ADs (and long-time IETFers > know this) that this is an initial schedule, and will likely change > (this is often the case with IETF agendas). So for those planning on > attending, the safest thing to do would be to plan on being in Taipai > M-F. Either or both of these sessions could still be moved in order to > accomodate general scheduling issues (including to Friday!!!). >=20 > Thomas >=20 > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > nvo3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 From bschlies@cisco.com Thu Oct 13 18:19:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0571021F8BB1; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:19:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ObbtMFd0C03O; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5822021F8AC9; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:19:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bschlies@cisco.com; l=475; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318555144; x=1319764744; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+SCOUzPfpwILZPCOTuyl/iV/rNtvoOGtMYBuvzyXUY4=; b=YUsVUTM2GaJ/w76jb9nK5tSUewsD5BZpXlMqRVeDIEXaq0lelcfxc7hf DBeTEpGIdt0622Bj1o+AepiuDTxIUhKLZqpaDgI/DznvjTDQeGGDirubZ oQzVr9QGblufm5Ylv/wrwNrGsu9pW6VaagX164+V2JmxkMI9oucHqwM8V Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAKaNl06tJV2c/2dsb2JhbABDqFuBBYFTAQEBAwESASc/EAtGVwYBNIdcmRABnieHDGEEk3iRcQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,343,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="28336520" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2011 01:19:03 +0000 Received: from dhcp-222-99.meetings.nanog.org (bxb-vpn3-356.cisco.com [10.86.249.100]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9E1J2VN010324; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:19:02 GMT Subject: Re: [nvo3] Network Overlays in Taipei Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Benson Schliesser In-Reply-To: <201110132352.p9DNq0Tm013078@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:19:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2D6F2B3F-5008-4282-AFA8-F01697B3FFCB@cisco.com> References: <201110131436.p9DEa2Ej006983@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <201110132108.p9DL8Ukl010058@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058CFE62B2@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <201110132352.p9DNq0Tm013078@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Thomas Narten , david.black@emc.com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, nvo3@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:19:05 -0000 FYI - I've already asked the secretariat to help resolve the ARMD/L2VPN = conflict. I'll post follow-up details when this is sorted. Cheers, -Benson On Oct 13, 2011, at 7:52 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: >> For the current schedule, Monday 1p is the same slot as armd, which >> has a significant overlap of interest with nvo3, so Thursday, 9a >> would probably be a better choice. >=20 > Indeed, that is a problem. Thanks for pointing it out.=20 >=20 > Thomas From xuxiaohu@huawei.com Thu Oct 13 19:48:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40A121F8C17; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:48:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.381 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U3TmVv6o9+Iz; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DF521F8C10; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LT1006SOBS0EY@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:48:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LT100I9YBS0K9@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:48:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AEL25499; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:47:59 +0800 Received: from SZXEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.95) by szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:47:54 +0800 Received: from SZXEML525-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.181]) by szxeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.95]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:47:51 +0800 Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:47:51 +0000 From: Xuxiaohu Subject: re: possible scope gap//re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap? X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.66] To: Murari Sridharan , Thomas Narten , "nvo3@ietf.org" Message-id: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE738D15@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_C7RzNrZIxMCLrpglxS8Dyw)" Content-language: zh-CN Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: possible scope gap//re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap? Thread-index: AQHMgjl58MaBPbTLN0ykbFrwIKf11JVrFaoAgAgxL0CAB+3UAA== X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <201110040004.p94048u7009531@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:48:04 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_C7RzNrZIxMCLrpglxS8Dyw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 VGhlcmUgaXMgYSBtaXN0YWtlIHRoYXQgSSBzaG91bGQgY29ycmVjdC4gVGhhdCBpcyBEYXRhIENl bnRlciBNb2JpbGl0eSAoaHR0cDovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1yYWdn YXJ3YS1kYXRhLWNlbnRlci1tb2JpbGl0eSkgc3RpbGwgdXNlcyBMMiBvdmVybGF5IChpLmUuLCBN QUMtYmFzZWQgZm9yd2FyZGluZyApIHRvIGNvbm5lY3QgVk1zIHdoaWNoIGFyZSBiZWxvbmcgdG8g dGhlIHNhbWUgc3VibmV0LCBhbmQgaG9zdCByb3V0ZXMgYXJlIG9ubHkgdXNlZCBmb3IgaW50ZXIt c3VibmV0IGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24uDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNClhpYW9odQ0KDQq3orz+yMs6 IFh1eGlhb2h1DQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxMcTqMTDUwjnI1SAxMDo0NQ0KytW8/sjLOiAnTXVyYXJp IFNyaWRoYXJhbic7IFRob21hcyBOYXJ0ZW47IG52bzNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCrOty806IGwydnBuQGll dGYub3JnOyAnbDN2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmcnDQrW98ziOiBwb3NzaWJsZSBzY29wZSBnYXAvL3JlOiBb bnZvM10gTDJWUE4gb3ZlcmxhcD8NCg0KSXQgaXMgYSBnb29kIHF1ZXN0aW9uLg0KDQpJTUhPLCBJ dKGvcyBhYnNvbHV0ZWx5IHBvc3NpYmxlIHRvIHJlYWxpemUgbmV0d29yayB2aXJ0dWFsaXphdGlv biBpbiBhIGRhdGEgY2VudGVyIG9yIGFjcm9zcyBtdWx0aXBsZSBkYXRhIGNlbnRlcnMgYnkgdXNp bmcgTDMgb3ZlcmxheSwgZXNwZWNpYWxseSBob3N0IHJvdXRlIGJhc2VkIElQLW9ubHkgTDJWUE4g c2VydmljZS4gSG9zdCByb3V0ZSBiYXNlZCBJUC1vbmx5IEwyVlBOIHNlcnZpY2UgY291bGQgYWxz byBhbGxvdyB0aGUgaG9zdHMgd2l0aGluIGEgZ2l2ZSBWUE4gaW5zdGFuY2UgdG8gYWN0IGFzIGlm IHRoZXkgd2VyZSBsb2NhdGVkIHdpdGhpbiBhIHN1Ym5ldC9MQU4gZXhjZXB0IHRoYXQgb25seSBJ UCB0cmFmZmljIGlzIHN1cHBvcnRlZC4gQ29tcGFyZWQgdG8gdGhvc2UgTUFDIGZvcndhcmRpbmcg YmFzZWQgTDJWUE4gc2VydmljZXMgKGkuZS4sIEwyIG92ZXJsYXkpIHN1Y2ggYXMgVlBMUywgIGhv c3Qgcm91dGUgYmFzZWQgSVAtb25seSBMMlZQTiBzZXJ2aWNlIGRvZXMgc2VlbSBhIGJpdCByZXN0 cmljdGl2ZSBzaW5jZSB0aG9zZSBsZWdhY3kgbm9uLUlQIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyAoZS5nLiwgbGlu ay1sb2NhbCBtdWx0aWNhc3QsIG5vbi1JUCB1bmljYXN0KSB3b3VsZCBub3QgYmUgc3VwcG9ydGVk LiBIb3dldmVyLCBob3N0IGJhc2VkIElQLW9ubHkgTDJWUE4gc2VydmljZSBoYXMgbWFueSB1bmlx dWUgYW5kIGNoYXJtaW5nIGFkdmFudGFnZXMgaW4gYWRkcmVzc2luZyB0aGUgc2NhbGluZyBpc3N1 ZXMgdGhhdCB0b2RheaGvcyBjbG91ZCBkYXRhIGNlbnRlcnMgYXJlIGZhY2luZywgc3VjaCBhcyBB UlAgYnJvYWRjYXN0IHN0b3JtIHJlZHVjdGlvbiwgdW5rbm93biB1bmljYXN0IGZsb29kaW5nIGF2 b2lkYW5jZSwgTUFDIHRhYmxlIHJlZHVjdGlvbiBvbiBDRSBzd2l0Y2hlcywgYWN0aXZlLWFjdGl2 ZSBEQyBleGl0IGFuZCBBUlAgdGFibGUgcmVkdWN0aW9uIG9uIERDIGV4aXQgcm91dGVycy4uLg0K DQpFeGFtcGxlcyBvZiBzdWNoIGFwcHJvYWNoIGFyZToNClZpcnR1YWwgU3VibmV0IChodHRwOi8v dG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC14dS12aXJ0dWFsLXN1Ym5ldC0wNikNCkRhdGEgQ2Vu dGVyIE1vYmlsaXR5IChodHRwOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LXJhZ2dh cndhLWRhdGEtY2VudGVyLW1vYmlsaXR5KQ0KVkwyKGh0dHA6Ly9yZXNlYXJjaC5taWNyb3NvZnQu Y29tL2FwcHMvcHVicy9kZWZhdWx0LmFzcHg/aWQ9ODA2OTMpDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNClhp YW9odQ0KDQq3orz+yMs6IG52bzMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOm52bzMtYm91bmNl c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gtPqx7SBNdXJhcmkgU3JpZGhhcmFuDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxMcTqMTDUwjTI 1SAxMjo0Mw0KytW8/sjLOiBUaG9tYXMgTmFydGVuOyBudm8zQGlldGYub3JnDQrW98ziOiBSZTog W252bzNdIEwyVlBOIG92ZXJsYXA/DQoNCldoeSBhcmUgd2UgcmVzdHJpY3RpbmcgdGhlIGRpc2N1 c3Npb24gdG8ganVzdCBMMiBvdmVybGF5cz8gVGhlIHZpcnR1YWwgdG9wb2xvZ3kgY2FuIGJlIEwz IGFzIHdlbGwuDQoNClNlbnQgZnJvbSBteSBXaW5kb3dzIFBob25lDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KRnJvbTogVGhvbWFzIE5hcnRlbg0KU2VudDogMTAvMy8yMDExIDc6 MDQgUE0NClRvOiBudm8zQGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbbnZvM10gTDJWUE4gb3ZlcmxhcD8N CkZZSSwgYSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9mIHNvcnRzIHN0YXJ0ZWQgb24gdGhlIEwyVlBOIGxpc3QgYXMg dG8gd2hldGhlciBMMg0Kb3ZlcmxheXMgYXMgcHJvcG9zZWQgZm9yIHRoaXMgbGlzdCBhcmUgYWxy ZWFkeSBpbi1zY29wZSBmb3IgdGhlIEwyVlBODQpXRy4NCg0KSS5lLiwgc2VlIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cu aWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbC1hcmNoaXZlL3dlYi9sMnZwbi9jdXJyZW50L21zZzAyODc0Lmh0bWwNCg0K VGhvbWFzDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0K bnZvMyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCm52bzNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21h aWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vbnZvMw0K --Boundary_(ID_C7RzNrZIxMCLrpglxS8Dyw) Content-type: text/html; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

There is a= mistake that I should correct. That is Data Center Mobility (http://datatracker.iet= f.org/doc/draft-raggarwa-data-center-mobility) still uses L2 overlay (i.e., MAC-based forwarding ) to connect VMs which a= re belong to the same subnet, and host routes are only used for inter-subne= t communication.

 = ;

Best regar= ds,

Xiaohu

 = ;

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: Xuxiaoh= u
=B7=A2= =CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA10=D4=C29=C8=D5 10:45
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: 'Murari Sridharan'; Thomas Narten; nvo3@ietf.org
=B3=AD=CB=CD: l2vpn@ietf.org; 'l3vpn@ietf.org'
=D6=F7=CC=E2: possible scope gap//re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap?

 

It is a go= od question.  

 = ;

IMHO, It= =A1=AFs absolutely possible to realize network virtualization in a data cen= ter or across multiple data centers by using L3 overlay, especially host route based IP-only L2VPN service. Host route based IP-only L2VPN ser= vice could also allow the hosts within a give VPN instance to act as if the= y were located within a subnet/LAN except that only IP traffic is supported= . Compared to those MAC forwarding based L2VPN services (i.e., L2 overlay) such as VPLS,  host route bas= ed IP-only L2VPN service does seem a bit restrictive since those legacy non= -IP applications (e.g., link-local multicast, non-IP unicast) would not be = supported. However, host based IP-only L2VPN service has many unique and charming advantages in addressing the sc= aling issues that today=A1=AFs cloud data centers are facing, such as ARP b= roadcast storm reduction, unknown unicast flooding avoidance, MAC table red= uction on CE switches, active-active DC exit and ARP table reduction on DC exit routers...

 = ;

Examples o= f such approach are:

Virtual Su= bnet (http://tools.ietf.org/html/= draft-xu-virtual-subnet-06)

Data Cente= r Mobility (http:/= /datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raggarwa-data-center-mobility)

VL2(http:/= /research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=3D80693)

 = ;

Best regar= ds,

Xiaohu

 = ;

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: nvo3-bo= unces@ietf.org [mailto:nvo3-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA= =B1=ED Murari Sridharan
=B7=A2= =CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA10=D4=C24=C8=D5 12:43
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Thomas Narten; nvo3@ietf.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Re: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap?

 

Why are we restricting t= he discussion to just L2 overlays? The virtual topology can be L3 as well.<= br>
Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Thomas Narten
Sent: 10/3/2011 7:04 PM
To: nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: [nvo3] L2VPN overlap?

FYI, a discussion of sorts started on the L2VPN = list as to whether L2
overlays as proposed for this list are already in-scope for the L2VPN
WG.

I.e., see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/current/msg02874.html

Thomas
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
nvo3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/nvo3

--Boundary_(ID_C7RzNrZIxMCLrpglxS8Dyw)-- From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Fri Oct 14 05:08:29 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD2121F8B74; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:08:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7-aRowxTMfa0; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe02.verizon.com (fldsmtpe02.verizon.com [140.108.26.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A856421F8B6F; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:08:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi03.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.145]) by fldsmtpe02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2011 12:08:15 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,346,1315180800"; d="scan'208,217";a="159093923" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb05.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.87]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2011 12:08:15 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.3.168]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.87]) with mapi; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:08:15 -0400 To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:08:14 -0400 Subject: [l2vpn] L2vpn WG sessions at IETF 82 in Taipei, Taiwan - meeting dates/times Thread-Topic: [l2vpn] L2vpn WG sessions at IETF 82 in Taipei, Taiwan - meeting dates/times Thread-Index: AcyKafOK4GiaZ7l7Tqi/QjN8Y1v3MQ== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CABD97091FA4Enabilnbitarverizoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:08:29 -0000 --_000_CABD97091FA4Enabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, The meeting sessions for the l2vpn working group at IETF 82 in Taipei have = been set. They are at the following dates and times: l2vpn Session 1 (2.5 hours) Monday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500 Room Name: 201 ABC l2vpn Session 2 (2 hours) Thursday, Morning Session I 0900-1130 Room Name: 3F Banquet The second session on Thursday will be mainly focused on discussing and def= ining the problem that new drafts related to providing a layer2 service in = a Data center environment are trying to address. For some, it may be known = as NV03 work, and there was email exchange on the l2vpn working group email= list related to that. It was decided that this work will be presented and = discussed in the l2vpn working group with a main focus on defining the prob= lem and using the solutions in the drafts posted as examples of solution bu= t not to debate the solutions for now. We are trying to give the l2vpner's = headsup on that, but there will be more communication on this session withi= n the upcoming 2 weeks. The l3vpn WG is also cc'd as some may have interest= . Thanks, Giles & Nabil --_000_CABD97091FA4Enabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

    l2vpn= Session 1 (2.5 hours)
    Monday, Afte= rnoon Session I 1300-1500
    Room Name= : 201 ABC
  
   &n= bsp;l2vpn Session 2 (2 hours)
    Thurs= day, Morning Session I 0900-1130
    Ro= om Name: 3F Banquet

The second s= ession on Thursday will be mainly focused on discussing and defining the pr= oblem that new drafts related to providing a layer2 service in a Data cente= r environment are trying to address. For some, it may be known as NV03 work= , and there was email exchange on the l2vpn working group email list relate= d to that. It was decided that this work will be presented and discussed in= the l2vpn working group with a main focus on defining the problem and usin= g the solutions in the drafts posted as examples of solution but not to deb= ate the solutions for now. We are trying to give the l2vpner's headsup on t= hat, but there will be more communication on this session within the upcomi= ng 2 weeks. The l3vpn WG is also cc'd as some may have interest.

Thanks,
Gil= es & Nabil
--_000_CABD97091FA4Enabilnbitarverizoncom_-- From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Oct 14 11:47:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8212221F8BBB for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:47:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id psnlhN-hYtin for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A561821F8B05 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:47:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyg24 with SMTP id 24so3747872wyg.31 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:47:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UD6gALbSf0lKYHBhsCBG3zP3TQ60GzySO+Ms5mfIHzw=; b=iCcNBvT6Vvx9mt2DmGAddRHliRovtq7JA2UtljXYKNfO7I0ng1dkFZlkeE60TrcDdq jK85w4y5nZ/GwFj42Kfi/cF6fFjbM0XKGTW94oNddvasD9TKQf3zkwOgGbLTAlEe1sKb J/VJ/UYaLl5Wmpdco9bQZos+ZQtJ8vjTnL93Q= Received: by 10.216.230.166 with SMTP id j38mr355574weq.14.1318618036678; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.61.88.116] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o7sm15744254wbh.8.2011.10.14.11.47.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:47:15 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:47:32 +0100 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt? Thread-Index: Acx+3olnBdW6oUmrHUWspYzlTDElSgLwzGsR In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:47:18 -0000 There seems to be good consensus to go ahead with this as a WG draft. Authors, would you please republish as: draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-00. Thanks Nabil & Giles On 29/09/2011 20:32, "Giles Heron" wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-reqt-04 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-Tree is in scope, and we have a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-Tree to IESG by March > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. > > Please respond by Thursday 13th of October. > > Thanks! > > Nabil & Giles > > From lufang@cisco.com Fri Oct 14 15:15:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6B521F8CA0; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VALCoPNFcgfL; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEF821F8A91; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:15:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=lufang@cisco.com; l=5157; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318630533; x=1319840133; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to; bh=jv7bhpkOwu/kPb4Xssrts3KqsvtaE9YKY03zpnyK/T0=; b=c4aY+Kfrvw1gtm2oFm9PsONSj26Vevm7tnE4b7bm2a2u2KAX7m1EEx1L nv0pEQCXIv1tHWfTaqX4cl/BHnUEoO+zTUa+PR/bVRPWCBSNzLs2ERamB zu3V2k1htsOE74FaDwZIuqUkoUH6+sN98VEKipctdSK8kOHdSsZ5+dfhr s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFANWzmE6tJV2b/2dsb2JhbABDgk2eXgGHO4EFgW8BAQEDEgEJEQNZAgEqBhgGAVYBAQQBGhqhDgGeQ4cYYQSIAZEnjEI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,348,1315180800"; d="scan'208,217";a="28589451" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2011 22:15:33 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9EMFZQ5008721; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:15:35 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-201.cisco.com ([72.163.62.208]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:15:32 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC8ABE.C9D50F73" Subject: L3 VPN4DC discussion in L3vpn WG session, and Bar BOF in Taipei, Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:15:30 -0500 Message-ID: <238542D917511A45B6B8AA806E875E250714832A@XMB-RCD-201.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: L3 VPN4DC discussion in L3vpn WG session, and Bar BOF in Taipei, Thread-Index: AcyKafOK4GiaZ7l7Tqi/QjN8Y1v3MQAR+q7Q References: From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2011 22:15:32.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA3A4EE0:01CC8ABE] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:15:34 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC8ABE.C9D50F73 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Heads-up for those who are interested in vpn4dc discussion in Taipei. =20 Per IETF schedule http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/82/ L3VPN session has one hour on Wed. Nov. 16, 15:10 - 16:10PM. (Note that the schedule may change, as usual.) =20 L3VPN WG chairs will set the meeting agenda; we will work with the chairs to best use that 1 hour. =20 For those who are interested in vpn4dc Bar BOF, please ping me off-line. We will find a Bar, a corner in the lobby, or go dinner to work together. =20 Thanks, Luyuan ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC8ABE.C9D50F73 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Heads-up for those who are interested in vpn4dc discussion in = Taipei.

 

Per IETF schedule http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/82= /

L3VPN session has one hour on Wed. Nov. 16, 15:10 – = 16:10PM.

(Note that the schedule may change, as usual.)

 

L3VPN WG chairs will set the meeting agenda; we will work with the chairs to = best use that 1 hour.

 

For those who are interested in vpn4dc Bar BOF, please ping me off-line. We = will find a Bar, a corner in the lobby, or go dinner to work = together.

 

Thanks,<= /o:p>

Luyuan

------_=_NextPart_001_01CC8ABE.C9D50F73-- From giles.heron@gmail.com Wed Oct 19 11:32:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95C2D11E808F for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:32:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ybfJJOj4FIrK for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D447221F899F for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so2317057wyh.31 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:32:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QjAyQ0Kg37R8KevamiFgw7IDTDO0NfI2n545xxnQKcU=; b=vT+9hsrQ6ROKUkFBWSgFIhGpNx5Xt+ku/iq28L4Pb9ykAeLuuTB2Z5b8P0ZxIDRuGD 6CjrCfvCd6BSj/cS7SEaWsVmhhiFyyEIoIIaJw0uHO4jVRiZw7tGOzv49frT0BvGWweh XiXBjguVuq6tPxKmvmdCkOrPuvRgavNUmoqqo= Received: by 10.216.137.102 with SMTP id x80mr3265823wei.109.1319049166893; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:32:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.55.92.230] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fw16sm3601477wbb.13.2011.10.19.11.32.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:33:07 +0100 Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements Thread-Index: AcyOjYuRaFY5RLqS80m/b9A0cnKVjQ== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:32:48 -0000 This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft "Framework and Requirements for Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS)" The draft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-04 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group email list. This WG last call will close on Wednesday November 2nd 2011. Regards, Giles From anton.ivanov@kot-begemot.co.uk Thu Oct 20 00:52:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2808F21F8B5B for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:52:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7dOzy50x1leh for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from falkor.sigsegv.cx (cl-1221.lon-02.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a01:348:6:4c4::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B2321F8B5A for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.34] by falkor.sigsegv.cx with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RGnQA-0001ee-JB for l2vpn@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:52:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4E9FD32A.7040509@kot-begemot.co.uk> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:52:10 +0100 From: Anton Ivanov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20111004 Iceowl/1.0b1 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:52:14 -0000 Hi list, Some comments: Section 5 - UDP checksumming If the outer UDP is correctly checksummed the virtual switch MAY trust the checksum and instruct locally connected endpoints not to checksum the inner frame. Rationale - if traffic starts locally and terminates locally in a datacenter inner checksum has to be computed fully in software by the sending/receiving VMs. That is extra overhead which is not really necessary if the sending and the receiving host have computed the outer checksum in hardware on the physical ethernet interface (or in software in the ethernet driver). Unless I am mistaken, this is similar to the case where checksums are being turned off on tap for local to local traffic. In this case we are simply extending it from one virtual switch to another. -- Humans are allergic to change. They love to say, "We've always done it this way." I try to fight that. That's why I have a clock on my wall that runs counter-clockwise. -- R.A. Grace Hopper A. R. Ivanov E-mail: anton.ivanov@kot-begemot.co.uk From lucy.yong@huawei.com Fri Oct 21 07:49:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4C7711E8095; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:49:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NdHenb9gklgh; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DAE11E8088; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LTF003OH7U5E4@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:49:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.4.104]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LTF003C27U416@usaga04-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:49:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from DFWEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.203) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:49:18 -0700 Received: from DFWEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.111]) by dfweml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.203]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 07:49:08 -0700 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:49:07 +0000 From: Lucy yong Subject: FW: draft-yong-trill-trill-o-mpls X-Originating-IP: [10.47.135.94] To: "rbridge@postel.org" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Message-id: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D118C9189@dfweml506-mbx> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: draft-yong-trill-trill-o-mpls Thread-index: AQHMj3CYxqURHQddTUWsoibTjGg4dpWG35Bw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:49:19 -0000 This informational draft describes the ways of TRILL over IP/MPLS with existing technologies. It also introduces a hierarchical L2VPN solution using RBridges and MPLS. Welcome any input and look forward to discussing this in Taipei. Lucy > -----Original Message----- > From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:38 PM > To: Lucy yong > Subject: Confirmation for Auto-Post of I-D draft-yong-trill-trill-o- > mpls > > Follow this link to confirm you Auto-Post of I-D draft-yong-trill- > trill-o-mpls-00 > > I-D Submission Tool URL: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/36166/confirm/91aeb54f7eba1da > 793569a34b077e545d6c4832b/ > > Remember that you can cancel the submission from: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/36166/c36c7760091522ff29e9c61 > c96c06959/ From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Oct 21 08:20:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4C421F8713 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:20:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PilsN56kNBEc for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F40121F84E1 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwe6 with SMTP id 6so4139117wwe.13 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:20:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P1E0MaI7X42qbsnI0mOX0YpDA5LtpqN5pTf9jGorAV4=; b=iXPAJHlb5ib0q9cEza1uY81SWktz6AcnIvzPG8M3NW/bEWtPmlRT+4IZex22BoACYx 5kXx/KdPovsC4xPvl+yMUBwlB6NKi8abOC/EB0Xt0qxlPWqn5Td4tUgyW0tqGAEvw4qa KXf4kxiECDGbzVSw2RWHWQr2GXUSMd3oJFbKs= Received: by 10.227.138.147 with SMTP id a19mr1617287wbu.23.1319210453911; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [144.254.149.28] (dhcp-144-254-149-28.cisco.com. [144.254.149.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fw16sm14642120wbb.13.2011.10.21.08.20.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:20:52 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:21:18 +0100 Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2Xw== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:20:55 -0000 This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Friday 4th of November. Thanks! Giles From jdrake@juniper.net Fri Oct 21 08:32:42 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E111F0C72 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HHkzFYPU+A8m for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og114.obsmtp.com (exprod7og114.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46FF01F0C6F for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob114.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:32:42 PDT Received: from P-EMHUB11-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.58) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:30:49 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB11-HQ.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:30:49 -0700 From: John E Drake To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:30:49 -0700 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2XwAAVE+Q Message-ID: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A444BF8D68@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:32:42 -0000 Yes > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Giles Heron > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 8:21 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >=20 > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. > If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft > shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. >=20 > Please respond by Friday 4th of November. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Giles >=20 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Oct 21 08:38:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995821F0C65; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:38:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, FUZZY_VLIUM=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XKN5y6tWodnL; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033F41F0C64; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:38:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.61 Message-ID: <20111021153816.12996.59652.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:38:16 -0700 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:38:16 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in VPLS Author(s) : Raymond Key Simon Delord Frederic Jounay Lu Huang Zhihua Liu Manuel Paul Ruediger Kunze Nick Del Regno Joshua Rogers Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-00.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2011-10-15 This document provides functional requirements for Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) support in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS). It is intended that potential solutions will use these requirements as guidelines. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-00.txt From akatlas@gmail.com Fri Oct 21 08:46:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E18121F8770 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:46:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eDxXlXMGZ3JV for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:46:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42A221F86F6 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ywt2 with SMTP id 2so569501ywt.31 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:46:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HJrpRwAWIjUc/Jmg0dAr3ygLJA0V9iRrZ1X+vtNiBJ8=; b=LUguXSiyAVJgLWUbbBB4sm/GcfLEui2ZkImAD3JJ5A6W0y5D2QGVvtA+uwgtUVOJRe cS6aXTR/8ToheD8Wc+WGgcbv7uRCkZOi8WGzLZ6kZhQ9EDzxpa5ZPV2AliwaAYCVDxH4 97yFmkmg98HSbLJU7S3W2t8V9ND1dmv/cN8jU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.14.97 with SMTP id o1mr29207273pbc.0.1319211987782; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.92.18 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:46:27 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 From: Alia Atlas To: Giles Heron Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520e903ea4d4704afd0f971 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:46:30 -0000 --bcaec520e903ea4d4704afd0f971 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes please On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Giles Heron wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft > shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. > > Please respond by Friday 4th of November. > > Thanks! > > Giles > > > --bcaec520e903ea4d4704afd0f971 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes please

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:21 = AM, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2= vpn-evpn-req-01

should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.

Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a=
milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July
2012. =A0If you think this draft is a good starting point for those
requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. =A0If=
not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn&= #39;t
be adopted - which we can then debate.

Please respond by Friday 4th of November.

Thanks!

Giles



--bcaec520e903ea4d4704afd0f971-- From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Oct 21 08:58:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B6321F8AC3 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:58:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4yFAulePbdwm for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899F521F8B04 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so4654429wyh.31 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:58:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kIpedZ5HuhTOIlWF0vHyTBqPi8eHrWwdHGpomI8B2ns=; b=cwbNoy1yEAvOITHn3LmRBVLMxYQ+vwew5lDkxkCGHYkdZwymDv7dNNAiD5zOjtV1S4 sWaF2J9pXQ3QDQVU1x/qY+vt/rUGIhx3JEfoZxN/8HjixHEU9XKdWoktl8C8VOGYSdNC n8Nh2bqwDY33BSObvED3f7zZGJbQJQvaVt67w= Received: by 10.216.80.34 with SMTP id j34mr10477828wee.63.1319212727565; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [144.254.149.28] (dhcp-144-254-149-28.cisco.com. [144.254.149.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l42sm3620097wbn.16.2011.10.21.08.58.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:58:46 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:59:04 +0100 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 From: Giles Heron To: Alia Atlas Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQClsjwSnLawdsx0yXlJsCeq8Exg== In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:58:49 -0000 Hopefully "yes please" here means "yes I've read the doc and yes I'd like it to be adopted as a WG draft"? ;-) It'd be great if everyone who has read the draft can respond to this call (and if those who haven't read it could read it first and then respond!) Giles On 21/10/2011 16:46, "Alia Atlas" wrote: > Yes please > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Giles Heron wrote: > >> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >> >> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >> >> Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a >> milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July >> 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those >> requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If >> not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft >> shouldn't >> be adopted - which we can then debate. >> >> Please respond by Friday 4th of November. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Giles >> >> >> From akatlas@gmail.com Fri Oct 21 09:01:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFC91F0C62 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:01:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X9Q6-zX0GOVb for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5229F21F8B23 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so4817527gyh.31 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:01:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=O3dGo6uO7S5e5zwKgqxWy9zyO+dIu91gNvEmWsKc9pc=; b=lOkoy8sx3sDxid4fdN+372ju692N6Cruv5FqsMBEJyp6s25ACsIUWqKbi6CtC7fha+ E5xe8icP6GNcljGYbuGA/o9hvqGWD2C0JBMEeuzuuJRYTPghTDwXWbSkUMMgWGImLq4p AW4S0yNtUaqnmM4IBFJn/3knu8HDAif09C/H8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.37.97 with SMTP id x1mr28765057pbj.14.1319212905456; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.92.18 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:01:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:01:45 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 From: Alia Atlas To: Giles Heron Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec520e6279ce2a904afd1301a Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:01:47 -0000 --bcaec520e6279ce2a904afd1301a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Naturally. I have read the draft and would like it to be adopted as a WG draft. I find that it does a good job of describing the requirements around the problem. Alia On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Giles Heron wrote: > Hopefully "yes please" here means "yes I've read the doc and yes I'd like > it > to be adopted as a WG draft"? ;-) > > It'd be great if everyone who has read the draft can respond to this call > (and if those who haven't read it could read it first and then respond!) > > Giles > > On 21/10/2011 16:46, "Alia Atlas" wrote: > > > Yes please > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Giles Heron > wrote: > > > >> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > >> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > >> > >> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > >> > >> Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a > >> milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July > >> 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > >> requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. > If > >> not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft > >> shouldn't > >> be adopted - which we can then debate. > >> > >> Please respond by Friday 4th of November. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Giles > >> > >> > >> > > > --bcaec520e6279ce2a904afd1301a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Naturally.=A0 I have read the draft and would like it to be adopted as a WG= draft.
I find that it does a good job of describing the requirements ar= ound the problem.

Alia

On Fri, Oct= 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com> wrote:
Hopefully "yes please" here means= "yes I've read the doc and yes I'd like it
to be adopted as a WG draft"? ;-)

It'd be great if everyone who has read the draft can respond to this ca= ll
(and if those who haven't read it could read it first and then respond!= )

Giles

On 21/10/2011 16:46, "Alia Atlas" <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes please
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-ra= ggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01
>>
>> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.
>>
>> Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and = we have a
>> milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by= July
>> 2012. =A0If you think this draft is a good starting point for thos= e
>> requirements then please reply indicating your support for the dra= ft. =A0If
>> not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft=
>> shouldn't
>> be adopted - which we can then debate.
>>
>> Please respond by Friday 4th of November.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Giles
>>
>>
>>



--bcaec520e6279ce2a904afd1301a-- From lucy.yong@huawei.com Fri Oct 21 09:22:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1903C21F8BB1; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:22:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AIqnLoDkXTaU; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga02-in.huawei.com (usaga02-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3BB21F8BA8; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LTF00EZIC5WA8@usaga02-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:22:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.4.104]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LTF00FZGC5246@usaga02-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:22:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by dfweml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:22:18 -0700 Received: from DFWEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.111]) by DFWEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:22:19 -0700 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:22:18 +0000 From: Lucy yong Subject: FW: draft-mack-crane-l2vpn-spb-o-mpls-00.txt X-Originating-IP: [10.47.140.102] To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Message-id: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D118C9286@dfweml506-mbx> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US Thread-topic: draft-mack-crane-l2vpn-spb-o-mpls-00.txt Thread-index: AQHMj29AvvOh0vnNckaKEbxj+lfcpZWG+9qQ X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:22:49 -0000 > > Abstract: > This informational document describes ways to interconnect a > Shortest Path Tree (SPT) Region over WAN connections using MPLS > Pseudo Wires (PWs) with existing SPB and MPLS standards. It also > describes how a combination of SPB and MPLS can provide a > hierarchical scalable L2VPN. > Welcome the feedback on this draft. Lucy From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Oct 21 09:45:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFF121F85FF for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:45:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmWjeveiqg6s for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE34B21F8586 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:45:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p9LGjdaY000406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:45:39 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:45:39 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "'giles.heron@gmail.com'" , "'l2vpn@ietf.org'" Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:45:38 +0200 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2XwAC8hD0 Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671A4A5887@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:45:44 -0000 WWVzDQoNCkNoZWVycywNCldpbQ0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCnNlbnQgZnJvbSBibGFja2Jl cnJ5DQoNCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGwydnBuLWJvdW5jZXNA aWV0Zi5vcmcgPGwydnBuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpUbzogbDJ2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmcgPGwy dnBuQGlldGYub3JnPg0KU2VudDogRnJpIE9jdCAyMSAxNzoyMToxOCAyMDExClN1YmplY3Q6IFdH IGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LXNhamFzc2ktcmFnZ2Fyd2EtbDJ2cG4tZXZwbi1yZXEtMDENCg0K VGhpcyBpcyBhIHJlcXVlc3QgdG8gZ2F1Z2UgY29uc2Vuc3VzIGFzIHRvIHdoZXRoZXI6DQoNCmh0 dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXNhamFzc2ktcmFnZ2Fyd2EtbDJ2cG4tZXZw bi1yZXEtMDENCg0Kc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFjY2VwdGVkIGFzIGFuIEwyVlBOIFdHIGRyYWZ0Lg0KDQpO b3cgdGhhdCB3ZSd2ZSBhZG9wdGVkIHRoZSBuZXcgY2hhcnRlciBFLVZQTiBpcyBpbiBzY29wZSwg YW5kIHdlIGhhdmUgYQ0KbWlsZXN0b25lIGl0ZW0gdG8gc3VibWl0IGEgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGRy YWZ0IGZvciBFLVZQTiB0byBJRVNHIGJ5IEp1bHkNCjIwMTIuICBJZiB5b3UgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBk cmFmdCBpcyBhIGdvb2Qgc3RhcnRpbmcgcG9pbnQgZm9yIHRob3NlDQpyZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgdGhl biBwbGVhc2UgcmVwbHkgaW5kaWNhdGluZyB5b3VyIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gIElm DQpub3QgdGhlbiBwbGVhc2UgcmVwbHkgZ2l2aW5nIHNvbWUgcmVhc29ucyB3aHkgeW91IHRoaW5r IHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgc2hvdWxkbid0DQpiZSBhZG9wdGVkIC0gd2hpY2ggd2UgY2FuIHRoZW4gZGVi YXRlLg0KDQpQbGVhc2UgcmVzcG9uZCBieSBGcmlkYXkgNHRoIG9mIE5vdmVtYmVyLg0KDQpUaGFu a3MhDQoNCkdpbGVzDQoNCg0K From ssalam@cisco.com Fri Oct 21 10:03:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8571F0C95 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:03:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NK83HjOa5h2g for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0501F0C91 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:03:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ssalam@cisco.com; l=793; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1319216611; x=1320426211; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=efajtU7WfgHyiO0LBNLSLu+vx4khQRQNvxWxPgHo8Bg=; b=kas/atYRPqZgmlj3KVLMi7qvaHwhTNZVyux98Gsfw3/Ek8UVP0pN/isG vbvdOa3DEz3JhFbdO3QNhOr5gzulkA1uEiqAWKhCG7DZO7daZ57hn18ke rMnqxj+p3/qnVNKlkzB8NVjW+qHSXMncnjGtb6kQBl8gmd0ngE9oL92DL c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoEGAPikoU6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDqRsCgQWBbgEBAQMBEgEnAgFBDQEIZzYBAQQBEiKHXgiVUAGeNohABIgDi36FNYR+gxmELg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,386,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="9422917" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2011 17:03:30 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9LH3UfK002219; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:03:30 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-233.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.88]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:03:30 -0700 Received: from 161.44.207.8 ([161.44.207.8]) by xmb-sjc-233.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.88]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:03:30 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.27.0.100910 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:03:24 -0700 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 From: Samer Salam To: Giles Heron , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2XwADkNjz In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2011 17:03:30.0665 (UTC) FILETIME=[5BD95590:01CC9013] X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:03:31 -0000 Yes / support. Regards, Samer On 11-10-21 8:21 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. > > Please respond by Friday 4th of November. > > Thanks! > > Giles > > From josh.rogers@twcable.com Fri Oct 21 12:04:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54ED321F8B8E for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vi8q37C5VemB for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A792821F8B8C for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:11 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.15 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,387,1315195200"; d="scan'208";a="273179433" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.15]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 21 Oct 2011 14:59:51 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS08.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.36]) by PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.15]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:03:28 -0400 From: "Rogers, Josh" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:03:26 -0400 Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQJB1GL36tmKnfRLSUajSTS5GjgA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:04:12 -0000 Agree. On 10/21/11 10:21 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > >should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > >Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a >milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July >2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those >requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If >not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft >shouldn't >be adopted - which we can then debate. > >Please respond by Friday 4th of November. > >Thanks! > >Giles > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Oct 21 12:48:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659D221F8AE1 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XbFqWvpq1dJ6 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D805A21F8AD2 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9LJm5US010407 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:48:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.110]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9LJm45R021392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:48:05 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.144]) by USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.110]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:48:04 -0500 From: "Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)" To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:48:01 -0500 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2XwAJS7cA Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:48:06 -0000 Yes Andrew -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:21 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn'= t be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Friday 4th of November. Thanks! Giles From roberto.fragassi@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Oct 21 13:10:24 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBAD21F8B04 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:10:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BIns8ouTMYoJ for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E8D21F8B03 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9LK9xGi029168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:10:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9LK9xo1020453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:09:59 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.146]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:09:59 -0500 From: "Fragassi, Roberto (Roberto)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:09:57 -0500 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2XwAKEnug Message-ID: <73F3CA62A57C6148B6ECEB8DB8E40A290AD3EFB6A9@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:10:24 -0000 Support -Bert -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:21 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn'= t be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Friday 4th of November. Thanks! Giles From david.i.allan@ericsson.com Fri Oct 21 13:42:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D1921F8AE9; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:42:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oCrMfKBMHQy6; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F0421F8AD6; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p9LKg4fv020935; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:42:08 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.120]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:42:07 -0400 From: David Allan I To: Lucy yong , "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:42:07 -0400 Subject: RE: draft-mack-crane-l2vpn-spb-o-mpls-00.txt Thread-Topic: draft-mack-crane-l2vpn-spb-o-mpls-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHMj29AvvOh0vnNckaKEbxj+lfcpZWG+9qQgABE3HA= Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223F7BD3F@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D118C9286@dfweml506-mbx> In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D118C9286@dfweml506-mbx> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:42:11 -0000 Hi Lucy: In general I'm supportive of this draft.=20 My first blush comment is that what is missing is a multi-site scenario as = per Figure 3 but with B-tagged ACs and using an emulated LAN service... In other words, a hierarchical model but not requiring a fully integrated S= PB/PE node and/or a PW mesh per B-VID, as all B-VIDs are common to all site= s. I'd be happy to work with the authors to incorporate such a model... Cheers Dave -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Luc= y yong Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:22 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] FW: draft-mack-crane-l2vpn-spb-o-mpls-00.txt >=20 > Abstract: > This informational document describes ways to interconnect a > Shortest Path Tree (SPT) Region over WAN connections using MPLS > Pseudo Wires (PWs) with existing SPB and MPLS standards. It also > describes how a combination of SPB and MPLS can provide a > hierarchical scalable L2VPN. >=20 Welcome the feedback on this draft. Lucy _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From paul@unbehagen.net Fri Oct 21 14:25:41 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AD211E808B for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:25:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yruIPHXjL4Qm for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7B911E8082 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iabn5 with SMTP id n5so5723574iab.31 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.161.70 with SMTP id s6mr27017278icx.40.1319232338994; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.57] (c-67-161-144-217.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [67.161.144.217]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id eh34sm36154178ibb.5.2011.10.21.14.25.36 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 References: From: Paul Unbehagen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A334) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:25:34 -0600 To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:25:41 -0000 Support -- Paul Unbehagen > On 10/21/11 10:21 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >=20 >> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >>=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >>=20 >> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >>=20 >> Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a >> milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July >> 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those >> requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If= >> not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft >> shouldn't >> be adopted - which we can then debate. >>=20 >> Please respond by Friday 4th of November. >>=20 >> Thanks! >>=20 >> Giles >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propr= ietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the us= e of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the i= ntended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemina= tion, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of a= nd attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If= you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediatel= y and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any pr= intout. From lucy.yong@huawei.com Fri Oct 21 15:10:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C1821F8AD6 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vf6z7Zz0cviv for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C792F21F8AD2 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LTF001NJS8Y3X@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:10:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.4.104]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LTF00GXUS8XDY@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for l2vpn@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:10:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:10:11 -0700 Received: from DFWEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.111]) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.151]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:10:03 -0700 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:10:02 +0000 From: Lucy yong Subject: RE: draft-mack-crane-l2vpn-spb-o-mpls-00.txt In-reply-to: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223F7BD3F@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-Originating-IP: [10.47.140.34] To: David Allan I , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Message-id: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D118C93BA@dfweml506-mbx> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: draft-mack-crane-l2vpn-spb-o-mpls-00.txt Thread-index: AQHMkDHqgwb4GJmj0UyKm7WbWz0SNJWHWCtQ X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D118C9286@dfweml506-mbx> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223F7BD3F@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> Cc: Ben mackcrane X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:10:23 -0000 Hi David, Thank you for your supportive! I like to understand your model more. Since SPB does not support multi-access link, the draft proposes a way for multi-sites interconnection. Lucy -----Original Message----- From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 3:42 PM To: Lucy yong; l2vpn@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-mack-crane-l2vpn-spb-o-mpls-00.txt Hi Lucy: In general I'm supportive of this draft. My first blush comment is that what is missing is a multi-site scenario as per Figure 3 but with B-tagged ACs and using an emulated LAN service... In other words, a hierarchical model but not requiring a fully integrated SPB/PE node and/or a PW mesh per B-VID, as all B-VIDs are common to all sites. I'd be happy to work with the authors to incorporate such a model... Cheers Dave -----Original Message----- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy yong Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:22 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] FW: draft-mack-crane-l2vpn-spb-o-mpls-00.txt > > Abstract: > This informational document describes ways to interconnect a > Shortest Path Tree (SPT) Region over WAN connections using MPLS > Pseudo Wires (PWs) with existing SPB and MPLS standards. It also > describes how a combination of SPB and MPLS can provide a > hierarchical scalable L2VPN. > Welcome the feedback on this draft. Lucy _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Oct 21 18:06:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DEA921F85D1 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:06:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KVpvhhd+WFL for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34AF21F85BB for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9M16HXU012129 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:06:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.111]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9M16Gc2010119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:06:16 -0500 Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.139]) by USNAVSXCHHUB02.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.111]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:06:16 -0500 From: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" To: Giles Heron Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:06:13 -0500 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQClsjwSnLawdsx0yXlJsCeq8ExgASQrfw Message-ID: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC8BECB0@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 01:06:19 -0000 I am supportive of the draft (and yes I read it Giles :) ). I just wonder w= hether we should adopt it as is or we should try to generalize it to more g= eneric L2 DC requirements. =20 As you know we will have a special L2VPN session in Taipei dedicated to DC = proposals. There were a number of drafts (see NVO3 proposals) on L2 multi-t= enancy for DC with sections on problem statement that might generate DC req= uirements beyond the scope of evpn-req draft.=20 Should we go ahead with this or wait until Taipei to see how is the best to= move forward? Comments? Florin > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Giles Heron > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 8:59 AM > To: Alia Atlas > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >=20 > Hopefully "yes please" here means "yes I've read the doc and yes I'd like= it > to be adopted as a WG draft"? ;-) >=20 > It'd be great if everyone who has read the draft can respond to this call > (and if those who haven't read it could read it first and then respond!) >=20 > Giles >=20 > On 21/10/2011 16:46, "Alia Atlas" wrote: >=20 > > Yes please > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Giles Heron w= rote: > > > >> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > >> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > >> > >> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > >> > >> Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have = a > >> milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by Jul= y > >> 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > >> requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. = If > >> not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft > >> shouldn't > >> be adopted - which we can then debate. > >> > >> Please respond by Friday 4th of November. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Giles > >> > >> > >> >=20 From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Sat Oct 22 07:01:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51FA321F84CF for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:01:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.838 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WLVpPjHKUl0I for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D0721F84E5 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 41713577109098; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 21:58:19 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 20387.683968793; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:01:23 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p9ME1IEl076260; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:01:18 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Lizhong Jin Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:00:54 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-10-22 22:01:22, Serialize complete at 2011-10-22 22:01:22 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004D056648257931_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p9ME1IEl076260 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:01:32 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 004D056648257931_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Yes, support. Lizhong > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:21:18 +0100 > From: Giles Heron > To: > Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. > > Please respond by Friday 4th of November. > > Thanks! > > Giles > > > -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 004D056648257931_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Yes, support.

Lizhong


> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:21:18 +0100
> From: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
> To: <l2vpn@ietf.org>
> Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01
> Message-ID: <CAC74C7E.FC6F%giles.heron@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="US-ASCII"
>
> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01
>
> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.
>
> Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a
> milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July
> 2012.  If you think this draft is a good starting point for those
> requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft.  If
> not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn't
> be adopted - which we can then debate.
>
> Please respond by Friday 4th of November.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Giles
>
>
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 004D056648257931_=-- From sajassi@cisco.com Sat Oct 22 11:22:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAA721F85DB for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:22:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mCb1uJKGwngf for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CE921F85BB for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:22:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sajassi@cisco.com; l=2955; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1319307744; x=1320517344; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=m8oCH5dWVDzcSO6bAo8eKKPqo0c/ezAFR1w07FiAhh4=; b=fPN9WbNvr5xOC6x6UXNW1RHP+EIjrPX0Y5zOM6laFsSM7wkOzPAfVoXl 8uuSRoSpyYp6tZ9eJFFMFDuQ4bWcfXH2uAtrSL42V+cqdB3zLQAkEAKx0 bZmzoewW6o2pLjAdnyw+vdfqcXOMloM0FwfKoiesqpsvf+0U6tw3oDtpw 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsEAAC0Jo06rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABCmU6PQoEFgW4BAQEEEgEdCj8MBAIBCBEEAQEBCgYXAQYBICUJCAEBBAESCBqHZpYIAZ0vh19hBIgGkTiEfodI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,391,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="9008413" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2011 18:22:24 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9MIMOTh025850; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:22:24 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.68]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:22:24 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:22:21 -0700 Message-ID: <7F115A41909B2641A9550322C4DF9D56083173FA@xmb-sjc-22d.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC8BECB0@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQClsjwSnLawdsx0yXlJsCeq8ExgASQrfwACTZfHA= References: <2073A6C5467C99478898544C6EBA3F4602BC8BECB0@USNAVSXCHMBSC3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin)" , "Giles Heron" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2011 18:22:24.0923 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C1986B0:01CC90E7] Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:22:26 -0000 Hi Florin, Thanks for your support. I think what we have right now constitutes a good set of requirements and if we need to expand it in the next rev as the result of the future discussions, then we will do that accordingly. To have a draft to be adopted as a WG draft, all it means is that there is a good level of consensus to continue this work in the WG and it seems there is such consensus. Cheers, Ali=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Balus, Florin Stelian (Florin) > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 6:06 PM > To: Giles Heron > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >=20 > I am supportive of the draft (and yes I read it Giles :) ). I just > wonder whether we should adopt it as is or we should try to generalize > it to more generic L2 DC requirements. >=20 > As you know we will have a special L2VPN session in Taipei dedicated to > DC proposals. There were a number of drafts (see NVO3 proposals) on L2 > multi-tenancy for DC with sections on problem statement that might > generate DC requirements beyond the scope of evpn-req draft. >=20 > Should we go ahead with this or wait until Taipei to see how is the > best to move forward? >=20 > Comments? > Florin >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of > > Giles Heron > > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 8:59 AM > > To: Alia Atlas > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > > > Hopefully "yes please" here means "yes I've read the doc and yes I'd > like it > > to be adopted as a WG draft"? ;-) > > > > It'd be great if everyone who has read the draft can respond to this > call > > (and if those who haven't read it could read it first and then > respond!) > > > > Giles > > > > On 21/10/2011 16:46, "Alia Atlas" wrote: > > > > > Yes please > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Giles Heron > wrote: > > > > > >> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: > > >> > > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req- > 01 > > >> > > >> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. > > >> > > >> Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we > have a > > >> milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by > July > > >> 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > > >> requirements then please reply indicating your support for the > draft. If > > >> not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft > > >> shouldn't > > >> be adopted - which we can then debate. > > >> > > >> Please respond by Friday 4th of November. > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > >> > > >> Giles > > >> > > >> > > >> > > From william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Sat Oct 22 20:14:31 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE67E21F891D for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:14:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lvkF+idhS2TQ for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omr8.networksolutionsemail.com (omr8.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A7921F8669 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cm-omr14 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr8.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p9N3EShi015666 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 23:14:28 -0400 Authentication-Results: cm-omr14 smtp.user=william.zayas@fibercrossing.net; auth=pass (LOGIN) X-Authenticated-UID: william.zayas@fibercrossing.net Received: from [98.254.60.214] ([98.254.60.214:3936] helo=your3b7c6e1c8e) by cm-omr14 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTPA id 81/0F-03699-49683AE4; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 23:14:28 -0400 Message-ID: From: "William Zayas" To: , "Lizhong Jin" References: Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 23:14:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01CC9110.57FF38B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: William Zayas List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:14:31 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01CC9110.57FF38B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable support. wz, ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Lizhong Jin=20 To: l2vpn@ietf.org=20 Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 10:00 AM Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Yes, support.=20 Lizhong=20 > ------------------------------ >=20 > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:21:18 +0100 > From: Giles Heron > To: > Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" >=20 > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we = have a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by = July > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the = draft. If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft = shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. >=20 > Please respond by Friday 4th of November. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Giles >=20 >=20 >=20 -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail = is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication = is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain = secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this = communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and = intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are = addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the = originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those = of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam = system. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01CC9110.57FF38B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
support.
 
wz,
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Lizhong=20 Jin
Sent: Saturday, October 22, = 2011 10:00=20 AM
Subject: Re: WG adoption of=20 draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01


Yes, support. =

Lizhong


>=20 ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 = 16:21:18 +0100
> From: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
&g= t; To:=20 <l2vpn@ietf.org>
> = Subject: WG=20 adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01
> = Message-ID:=20 <CAC74C7E.FC6F%giles.h= eron@gmail.com>
>=20 Content-Type: text/plain;   charset=3D"US-ASCII"
>
> = This is a=20 request to gauge consensus as to whether:
>
>=20 = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01
&g= t;=20
> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft.
>
> Now = that=20 we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a
> = milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by=20 July
> 2012.  If you think this draft is a good starting = point for=20 those
> requirements then please reply indicating your support = for the=20 draft.  If
> not then please reply giving some reasons why = you=20 think this draft shouldn't
> be adopted - which we can then=20 debate.
>
> Please respond by Friday 4th of = November.
>=20
> Thanks!
>
> Giles
>
>
>=20 = 
----------------------------------------------------=
----
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information=
 contained in this mail is solely prop=
erty of the sender's organization. This mai=
l communication is confidential. Recipients name=
d above are obligated to maintain secrecy&n=
bsp;and are not permitted to disclose the&n=
bsp;contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with&n=
bsp;it are confidential and intended solely =
;for the use of the individual or enti=
ty to whom they are addressed. If you&=
nbsp;have received this email in error plea=
se notify the originator of the message.&nb=
sp;Any views expressed in this message are&=
nbsp;those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses&n=
bsp;and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01CC9110.57FF38B0-- From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Sun Oct 23 15:53:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E7A821F8560; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:53:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O2yjlg7-3iXY; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe01.verizon.com (fldsmtpe01.verizon.com [140.108.26.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0DA21F8549; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:53:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2011 22:53:09 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,395,1315180800"; d="scan'208,217";a="164942317" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb05.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.87]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2011 22:53:09 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.3.168]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.87]) with mapi; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:53:09 -0400 To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:53:04 -0400 Subject: L2VPN Agenda Slot Call for IETF 82 - Taipei Thread-Topic: L2VPN Agenda Slot Call for IETF 82 - Taipei Thread-Index: AcyR1ogbDHaJgFPbQg+vurpVXnT+0w== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CACA130F24EC3nabilnbitarverizoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Thomas Narten , Giles Heron , "nvo3@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:53:12 -0000 --_000_CACA130F24EC3nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Please let us know if you have a time-slot request for the L2VPN sessions a= t IETF 82=96 Taipei. Please, email us your request by Sunday October 30, 20= 11 along with the following information: 1) Draft title 2) Presenter name 3) Requested duration Please remember that we have the following sessions as previously communica= ted l2vpn Session 1 (2 hours) Monday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500 Room Name: 201 ABC l2vpn Session 2 (2.5 hours) Thursday, Morning Session I 0900-1130 Room Name: 3F Banquet Please note that the main priority in the first session on Monday will be g= iven to drafts that are clearly within the scope of the current L2VPN chart= er . The second session on Thursday will be mainly focused on discussing and def= ining the problem that new drafts related to providing a layer2 service in = a Data center environment are trying to address. There have been email exch= anges on that. For some, it may be known as NV03 work. We will be co-ordina= ting/deciding on what will be presented in that session with the focus as s= tated in mind. Following are additional key dates to remember : * 2011-10-24 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00)= submission by 17:00 PT (00:00 UTC). * 2011-10-31 (Monday): Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 = PT (00:00 UTC). Thanks, Giles and Nabil --_000_CACA130F24EC3nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
Please let us know if you have a time-slot request for the L2VPN= sessions at IETF 82=96 Taipei. Please, email us your request by Sunday Oct= ober 30, 2011 along with the following information:
1) Draft title
2)= Presenter name
3) Requested duration

Please remember that we have the following sessio= ns as previously communicated

    l2vpn Session 1 (2 hours)
&nb= sp;   Monday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500
 = ;   Room Name: 201 ABC
  
    l2vpn Session 2 (2.5 hours)
    Thursday, Morning Session I 0900-1130
=
    Room Name: 3F Banquet
Pl= ease note that the main priority in the first session on Monday will be giv= en to drafts that are clearly within the scope of the current L2VPN charter= . 

The second session on Thursday will be mainly focused on discussing and de= fining the problem that new drafts related to providing a layer2 service in= a Data center environment are trying to address. There have been email exc= hanges on that. For some, it may be known as NV03 work. We will be co-ordin= ating/deciding on what will be presented in that session with the focus as = stated in mind. 

Following are additional  key dat= es to remember :

  • 2011-10-24 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initia= l document (-00) submission by 17:00 PT (00:00 UTC).
  • 2011-10-31 (Monday):=  <= /span>Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT (00:00 UTC= ).

Thanks,
Giles and Nabil --_000_CACA130F24EC3nabilnbitarverizoncom_-- From lucy.yong@huawei.com Sun Oct 23 17:42:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28B921F8B6D; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:42:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZC8Q6YvtCh2g; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga02-in.huawei.com (usaga02-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6080921F8B66; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LTJ0037XOME5H@usaga02-in.huawei.com>; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:42:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.18.4.104]) by usaga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0LTJ0083LOMEBJ@usaga02-in.huawei.com>; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:42:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from DFWEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.101) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:42:14 -0700 Received: from DFWEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.111]) by DFWEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::f07f:889f:78ef:8df3%13]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:42:08 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:42:07 +0000 From: Lucy yong Subject: FW: New Version Notification for draft-yong-trill-trill-o-mpls-00.txt X-Originating-IP: [10.47.134.111] To: "rbridge@postel.org" , "pwe3@ietf.org" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Message-id: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D118CA779@dfweml506-mbx> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US Thread-topic: New Version Notification for draft-yong-trill-trill-o-mpls-00.txt Thread-index: AQHMkeS0mFiZmBp3OUSp5Ysw9MxDkZWKpzIg X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 00:42:17 -0000 > A new version of I-D, draft-yong-trill-trill-o-mpls-00.txt has been > successfully submitted by Lucy Yong and posted to the IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-yong-trill-trill-o-mpls > Revision: 00 > Title: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) > over an MPLS PSN (Packet Switched Network) > Creation date: 2011-10-23 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 14 > > Abstract: > This informational document describes ways to interconnect TRILL > RBridges over WAN connections by using MPLS Pseudo Wire (PW) or > Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) with existing TRILL and MPLS > standards. It also describes the combination of RBridge and MPLS to > provide a hierarchical scalable L2VPN. > > Your input on this draft are welcome. Lucy From aldrin.isaac@gmail.com Sun Oct 23 19:58:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD4021F8A62 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:58:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YX02orCpEypc for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF7721F8922 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so4939238vws.31 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:58:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=i2PaKaBaJMEwiweHAgQMx/78E5sbjDhgY0+NalZTr+Y=; b=MXoHUUTjpToudn0FQ2CMNIGOKOb4HB1AgIsVzYFAJubmcX9BrgNM43ZY0R5pggjwSs TuLhEd97U91WY+YJluPJfudTOFR2HYObS9PtFloEBiobEyBmDQax227sNa9KRTvT/r1S VPLURdlByi8yQ8TRP/OmNwjjHlJSf2YZxYZj8= Received: by 10.52.115.102 with SMTP id jn6mr1992362vdb.115.1319425129401; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mymac.home (ool-44c1c730.dyn.optonline.net. [68.193.199.48]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r5sm21481805vdw.2.2011.10.23.19.58.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Aldrin Isaac In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:58:44 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <152F1270-EA64-4685-B66D-4871B34AB57F@gmail.com> References: To: Giles Heron X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:58:52 -0000 I support this draft as well. Cheers -- aldrin On Oct 21, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Giles Heron wrote: > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have = a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by = July > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. = If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft = shouldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. >=20 > Please respond by Friday 4th of November. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Giles >=20 >=20 From nmohammad@juniper.net Mon Oct 24 11:54:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C113D11E80D1 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:54:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gOqPefLtDjjY for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og107.obsmtp.com (exprod7og107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EFF11E809C for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:54:16 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:53:56 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:53:55 -0400 From: Nadeem Mohammad To: 'Giles Heron' Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:53:55 -0400 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQClsjwSnLawdsx0yXlJsCeq8ExgCc8DHg Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:54:16 -0000 Yes. Nadeem. -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:59 AM To: Alia Atlas Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Hopefully "yes please" here means "yes I've read the doc and yes I'd like i= t to be adopted as a WG draft"? ;-) It'd be great if everyone who has read the draft can respond to this call (and if those who haven't read it could read it first and then respond!) Giles On 21/10/2011 16:46, "Alia Atlas" wrote: > Yes please >=20 > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Giles Heron wro= te: >=20 >> This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >>=20 >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >>=20 >> should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >>=20 >> Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a >> milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July >> 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those >> requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. I= f >> not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft >> shouldn't >> be adopted - which we can then debate. >>=20 >> Please respond by Friday 4th of November. >>=20 >> Thanks! >>=20 >> Giles >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 From manishgupta@juniper.net Mon Oct 24 12:25:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE67011E80B5 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:25:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6KxbyE-7A28j for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3114F11E80B4 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:25:10 PDT Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:24:11 -0700 From: Manish Gupta To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:24:10 -0700 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyRtfsYRo/SyzznS7Wj7Jg3kWU/uwAzFG1A Message-ID: <05542EC42316164383B5180707A489EE1FBBC5B898@EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:25:11 -0000 Support it. -Manish > ------------------------------ >=20 > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:21:18 +0100 > From: Giles Heron > To: > Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" >=20 > This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >=20 > should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. >=20 > Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a > milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July > 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those > requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. = If > not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shou= ldn't > be adopted - which we can then debate. >=20 > Please respond by Friday 4th of November. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > Giles >=20 >=20 >=20 From psampath@juniper.net Mon Oct 24 15:59:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8F121F8C30 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:59:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kxELz58xV3w7 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og120.obsmtp.com (exprod7og120.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2EA21F8C2D for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob120.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:59:27 PDT Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:57:30 -0700 From: Prabakaran Thirumali Sampath To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:57:28 -0700 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2XwCmxFJQ Message-ID: <497B6D90E0023142AF34948DEFFAB38D43FB98177E@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:59:28 -0000 Yes Thanks, Prabakaran T Sampath. -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 8:21 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn'= t be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Friday 4th of November. Thanks! Giles From xuxiaohu@huawei.com Tue Oct 25 23:55:53 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D1E21F8B3F; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:55:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.384 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nwW5kovw2j0N; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D815621F8B37; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LTN003OGV8SP4@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:55:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LTN00KSWV8SKL@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:55:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AEK89112; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:55:38 +0800 Received: from SZXEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.59) by szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:55:34 +0800 Received: from SZXEML525-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.181]) by szxeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:55:32 +0800 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:55:31 +0000 From: Xuxiaohu Subject: re: L2VPN Agenda Slot Call for IETF 82 - Taipei In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.59] To: "Bitar, Nabil N" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Message-id: <1FEE3F8F5CCDE64C9A8E8F4AD27C19EE73B7E7@szxeml525-mbs.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_b6GOkPrBA64ycWxp64h4cQ)" Content-language: zh-CN Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: L2VPN Agenda Slot Call for IETF 82 - Taipei Thread-index: AcyR1ogbDHaJgFPbQg+vurpVXnT+0wB1l6Pg X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: Cc: Thomas Narten , Giles Heron , "nvo3@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:55:53 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_b6GOkPrBA64ycWxp64h4cQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 SGksDQoNCkkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byByZXF1ZXN0IGEgdGltZS1zbG90IGZvciBwcmVzZW50aW5n IElTLUlTIFZQTFMgd2hpY2ggaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBhIHNjYWxhYmxlIGxheWVy MiBzZXJ2aWNlIGluIHRoZSBtdWx0aS10ZW5hbnQgY2xvdWQgZGF0YSBjZW50ZXJzLg0KDQoxKSBE cmFmdCB0aXRsZTogZHJhZnQteHUtbDJ2cG4tdnBscy1pc2lzLTAxIChodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC14dS1sMnZwbi12cGxzLWlzaXMtMDEpDQoyKSBQcmVzZW50ZXIgbmFt ZTogWGlhb2h1IFh1DQozKSBSZXF1ZXN0ZWQgZHVyYXRpb246IDE1IG1pbnMNCg0KQlIsDQpYaWFv aHUNCg0KDQq3orz+yMs6IGwydnBuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpsMnZwbi1ib3Vu Y2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0+rHtIEJpdGFyLCBOYWJpbCBODQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxMcTqMTDUwjI0 yNUgNjo1Mw0KytW8/sjLOiBsMnZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZw0Ks63LzTogVGhvbWFzIE5hcnRlbjsgR2ls ZXMgSGVyb247IG52bzNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3zOI6IEwyVlBOIEFnZW5kYSBTbG90IENhbGwgZm9y IElFVEYgODIgLSBUYWlwZWkNCg0KSGksDQpQbGVhc2UgbGV0IHVzIGtub3cgaWYgeW91IGhhdmUg YSB0aW1lLXNsb3QgcmVxdWVzdCBmb3IgdGhlIEwyVlBOIHNlc3Npb25zIGF0IElFVEYgODKoQyBU YWlwZWkuIFBsZWFzZSwgZW1haWwgdXMgeW91ciByZXF1ZXN0IGJ5IFN1bmRheSBPY3RvYmVyIDMw LCAyMDExIGFsb25nIHdpdGggdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbjoNCjEpIERyYWZ0IHRp dGxlDQoyKSBQcmVzZW50ZXIgbmFtZQ0KMykgUmVxdWVzdGVkIGR1cmF0aW9uDQpQbGVhc2UgcmVt ZW1iZXIgdGhhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgc2Vzc2lvbnMgYXMgcHJldmlvdXNseSBj b21tdW5pY2F0ZWQNCg0KICAgIGwydnBuIFNlc3Npb24gMSAoMiBob3VycykNCiAgICBNb25kYXks IEFmdGVybm9vbiBTZXNzaW9uIEkgMTMwMC0xNTAwDQogICAgUm9vbSBOYW1lOiAyMDEgQUJDDQoN CiAgICBsMnZwbiBTZXNzaW9uIDIgKDIuNSBob3VycykNCiAgICBUaHVyc2RheSwgTW9ybmluZyBT ZXNzaW9uIEkgMDkwMC0xMTMwDQogICAgUm9vbSBOYW1lOiAzRiBCYW5xdWV0DQoNClBsZWFzZSBu b3RlIHRoYXQgdGhlIG1haW4gcHJpb3JpdHkgaW4gdGhlIGZpcnN0IHNlc3Npb24gb24gTW9uZGF5 IHdpbGwgYmUgZ2l2ZW4gdG8gZHJhZnRzIHRoYXQgYXJlIGNsZWFybHkgd2l0aGluIHRoZSBzY29w ZSBvZiB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBMMlZQTiBjaGFydGVyIC4NCg0KVGhlIHNlY29uZCBzZXNzaW9uIG9u IFRodXJzZGF5IHdpbGwgYmUgbWFpbmx5IGZvY3VzZWQgb24gZGlzY3Vzc2luZyBhbmQgZGVmaW5p bmcgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gdGhhdCBuZXcgZHJhZnRzIHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gcHJvdmlkaW5nIGEgbGF5 ZXIyIHNlcnZpY2UgaW4gYSBEYXRhIGNlbnRlciBlbnZpcm9ubWVudCBhcmUgdHJ5aW5nIHRvIGFk ZHJlc3MuIFRoZXJlIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBlbWFpbCBleGNoYW5nZXMgb24gdGhhdC4gRm9yIHNvbWUs IGl0IG1heSBiZSBrbm93biBhcyBOVjAzIHdvcmsuIFdlIHdpbGwgYmUgY28tb3JkaW5hdGluZy9k ZWNpZGluZyBvbiB3aGF0IHdpbGwgYmUgcHJlc2VudGVkIGluIHRoYXQgc2Vzc2lvbiB3aXRoIHRo ZSBmb2N1cyBhcyBzdGF0ZWQgaW4gbWluZC4NCg0KRm9sbG93aW5nIGFyZSBhZGRpdGlvbmFsICBr ZXkgZGF0ZXMgdG8gcmVtZW1iZXIgOg0KDQogICogICAyMDExLTEwLTI0IChNb25kYXkpOiBJbnRl cm5ldCBEcmFmdCBDdXQtb2ZmIGZvciBpbml0aWFsIGRvY3VtZW50ICgtMDApIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24g YnkgMTc6MDAgUFQgKDAwOjAwIFVUQykuDQogICogICAyMDExLTEwLTMxIChNb25kYXkpOiBJbnRl cm5ldCBEcmFmdCBmaW5hbCBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIGN1dC1vZmYgYnkgMTc6MDAgUFQgKDAwOjAwIFVU QykuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCkdpbGVzIGFuZCBOYWJpbA0K --Boundary_(ID_b6GOkPrBA64ycWxp64h4cQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 = ;

I would li= ke to request a time-slot for presenting IS-IS VPLS which is intended to pr= ovide a scalable layer2 service in the multi-tenant cloud data centers.

 = ;

1) Draft t= itle: draft-xu-l2vpn-vpls-isis-01 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-l2vp= n-vpls-isis-01)
2) Presenter name: Xiaohu Xu
3) Requested duration: 15 mins

 = ;

BR,

Xiaohu

 = ;

 = ;

=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: l2vpn-b= ounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA= =B1=ED Bitar, Nabil N
=B7=A2= =CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2011=C4=EA10=D4=C224=C8=D5 6:53
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: l2vpn@ietf.org
=B3=AD=CB=CD: Thomas Narten; Giles Heron; nvo3@ietf.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: L2VPN Agenda Slot Call for IETF 82 - Taipei

 

Hi,
Please let us know if you have a time-slot= request for the L2VPN sessions at IETF 82=A8C Taipei. Please, email us you= r request by Sunday October 30, 2011 along with the following information:<= /span>
1) Draft title
2) Presenter name
3) Requested duration

Please remember that we have the following sessions as= previously communicated

 <= /o:p>

   =  l2vpn Session 1 (2 hours)

    Monday, Afternoon Session I= 1300-1500

    Room Name: 201 ABC

  

    l2vpn Session 2 (2.5 h= ours)

    Thursday, Morning Sess= ion I 0900-1130

    Room Name: 3F Banquet<= o:p>

 

Please note that the main priority in the first sessio= n on Monday will be given to drafts that are clearly within the scope of the current L2VPN charter . 

 <= /o:p>

The second session on Thursday will be mainly focused = on discussing and defining the problem that new drafts related to providing a layer2 service in a Data center environment are trying to a= ddress. There have been email exchanges on that. For some, it may be known = as NV03 work. We will be co-ordinating/deciding on what will be presented i= n that session with the focus as stated in mind. 


Following are additional  key dates t= o remember :

  • 2011-10-24 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission by 17:00 PT (00:00 UTC= ).
  • 2011-10-31 = (Monday): Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT (00:00 UTC).


Thanks,
Giles and Nabil

--Boundary_(ID_b6GOkPrBA64ycWxp64h4cQ)-- From giles.heron@gmail.com Thu Oct 27 08:45:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A213221F8BA8 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W3JOJWkZBARg for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1434A21F8B94 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk31 with SMTP id 31so3205404qyk.10 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8Y10PvYABUAx22akufbeHrRrvrnxOgB9VyDFx9qx/nc=; b=XUAixEw4Hlsd8TZYrn+SPGhfuhzM/kMQQoTLQvfocQ7QuYMa1T7X0ZLIteFKzouJoK pV0BQBgkfHVHetBM6Bb8ozCiabzbGaQXnSQe32HQXvNFn/xig/MI957fovgFa5z2qUVx x4MdgSluZ8cqoMJUaKfTQJJn6BwpV7q45Lup0= Received: by 10.68.39.98 with SMTP id o2mr57359290pbk.119.1319730315157; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.155.45.3] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com. [128.107.239.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id le18sm15640553pbb.3.2011.10.27.08.45.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:13 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:45:48 +0100 Subject: Re: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyUv38prx5lXZlAVE+FdYIE/xekjg== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:45:18 -0000 This draft has passed WG Last Call - though there were some comments from Dave Allen which Ali and Florin will incorporate. Giles On 11/10/2011 09:44, "Giles Heron" wrote: > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft > =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. >=20 > The draft can be found at: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 > =20 > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group > email list.=20 >=20 > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > =20 > Regards, > Giles >=20 >=20 From giles.heron@gmail.com Thu Oct 27 08:45:20 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8333521F8BEB for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9uMzBioKRncc for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939AC21F8BE5 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnv1 with SMTP id v1so3262707ggn.31 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JRlAYDujUIdxfj7S9oJnnEHsgHENLcCyAkI3BNwel84=; b=lfE9JzZcWYe8g7MaXMxGV8vG+Juh41NqTNw7rNDJaXQtK3mCzUES6bD+NG1qLEmbiv FC04LDCSGaUrD8PcLBG/Ao4Owphhra/uC5ln1p8wL+3erngYB8kMMn7r6rVT1mHvvLxU Bxac/KcMZqa5SOQ0kN93Sh8H/fe8n7rBeEBHE= Received: by 10.68.55.100 with SMTP id r4mr74661350pbp.69.1319730318830; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.155.45.3] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com. [128.107.239.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id le18sm15640553pbb.3.2011.10.27.08.45.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:45:18 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.31.0.110725 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:45:53 +0100 Subject: Re: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 From: Giles Heron To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Thread-Index: AcyUv4IkmUN4z8otL0K8lwpvSFLQMA== Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:45:20 -0000 This draft has passed WG Last Call. Giles On 11/10/2011 09:47, "Giles Heron" wrote: > This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft > =B3VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges=B2. >=20 > The draft can be found at: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 > =20 > Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group > email list.=20 >=20 > This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. > =20 > Regards, > Giles >=20 >=20 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Oct 27 15:11:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A53B1F0C41; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:11:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Ruvjhpn2tGT; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437941F0C3D; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:11:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib-06.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62 Message-ID: <20111027221039.20962.2454.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:10:39 -0700 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:11:11 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : Virtual Private Lan Services (VPLS) Management Informati= on Base Author(s) : Thomas D. Nadeau A S Kiran Koushik Rohit Mediratta Virtual Private Lan Services Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib-06.txt Pages : 45 Date : 2011-10-27 This memo defines an experimental portion of the Management Information Base for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling of Virtual Private LAN services. It needs to be used in conjunction with Pseudo Wire (PW) Management Information Base [RFC5601]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mib-06.txt From senad@juniper.net Thu Oct 27 19:10:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1FE421F863E for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:10:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yMBvLyX1c9W1 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og118.obsmtp.com (exprod7og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F1721F85A1 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob118.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:10:33 PDT Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:38 -0700 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:03:37 -0400 From: Senad Palislamovic To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:03:35 -0400 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2XwFEGrZA Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D748894C1C@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:10:34 -0000 Support. /Senad From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Sat Oct 29 15:03:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E750021F84B3 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:03:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cXZOGVLb67F2 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6035A21F84B0 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9TM3R6b002235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:03:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub02.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.35]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9TM3QjR016038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:33:26 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.59]) by INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.35]) with mapi; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:33:26 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:32:53 +0530 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model Thread-Index: AcyH8gTXGKZx5OC5OUm/PjoqGnlPGgOlHhuA Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:03:35 -0000 Support -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:45 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft =B3Extensons to VPLS PE Model for Provider Backbone Bridging=B2. The draft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-pe-model-04 =20 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group email list.=20 This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. =20 Regards, Giles From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Sat Oct 29 15:03:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002B521F85A1 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:03:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V9AoK2YbTUYp for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1275F21F84D8 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9TM3ioS029720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:03:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub01.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.32]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9TM3gBj016665 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:33:43 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.59]) by INBANSXCHHUB01.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.32]) with mapi; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:33:42 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:33:08 +0530 Subject: RE: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Thread-Topic: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 Thread-Index: AcyH8ndIpgG6C790mUiXOfBN9ZfVDQOlBG8A Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:03:52 -0000 Support -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:48 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft =B3VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges=B2. The draft can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-02 =20 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group email list.=20 This WG last call will close on Tuesday October 25th 2011. =20 Regards, Giles From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Sat Oct 29 15:06:05 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F0F21F8514 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:06:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aQghXJE6kNAv for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39AD121F8505 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-33.lucent.com [135.250.11.33]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9TM604q027687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:06:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub02.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.35]) by inbansmailrelay2.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9TM5xHk016687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:35:59 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.59]) by INBANSXCHHUB02.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.35]) with mapi; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:35:59 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:35:26 +0530 Subject: RE: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Topic: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 Thread-Index: AcyQBRR+BnU8yNibqEe6U5jsOUZ2XwGgcYgw Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:06:05 -0000 Support -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of G= iles Heron Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 8:21 AM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption of draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 This is a request to gauge consensus as to whether: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-raggarwa-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 should be accepted as an L2VPN WG draft. Now that we've adopted the new charter E-VPN is in scope, and we have a milestone item to submit a requirements draft for E-VPN to IESG by July 2012. If you think this draft is a good starting point for those requirements then please reply indicating your support for the draft. If not then please reply giving some reasons why you think this draft shouldn'= t be adopted - which we can then debate. Please respond by Friday 4th of November. Thanks! Giles From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 31 10:39:06 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 680B411E8128; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.565 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aHYOQmNr2pyB; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0470411E8117; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62 Message-ID: <20111031173905.1666.78451.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:39:05 -0700 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:39:06 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Work= ing Group of the IETF. Title : LDP Extensions for Optimized MAC Address Withdrawal in H= -VPLS Author(s) : Pranjal Kumar Dutta Florin Balus Olen Stokes Geraldine Calvignac Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2011-10-31 [RFC4762] describes a mechanism to remove or unlearn MAC addresses that have been dynamically learned in a VPLS Instance for faster convergence on topology change. The procedure also removes MAC addresses in the VPLS that do not require relearning due to such topology change. This document defines an enhancement to the MAC Address Withdrawal procedure with empty MAC List [RFC4762], which enables a Provider Edge(PE) device to remove only the MAC addresses that need to be relearned. Additional extensions to [RFC4762] MAC Withdrawal procedures are specified to provide optimized MAC flushing for the PBB-VPLS specified in [PBB-VPLS Model]. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-05.txt From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 31 14:45:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 938D911E82CE; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:45:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id peXJX0IEwKU5; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BD911E82CF; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:45:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-18.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62 Message-ID: <20111031214502.11456.55809.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:45:02 -0700 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:45:02 -0000 --NextPart A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : ARP Mediation for IP Interworking of Layer 2 VPN Author(s) : H. Shah, et al Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-18.txt Pages : 33 Date : 2011-10-31 The Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) [RFC4664] provides point-to-point connections between pairs of Customer Edge (CE) devices. It does so by binding two Attachment Circuits (each connecting a CE device with a Provider Edge, PE, device) to a pseudowire (connecting the two PEs). In general, the Attachment Circuits must be of the same technology (e.g., both Ethernet, both ATM), and the pseudowire must carry the frames of that technology. However, if it is known that the frames' payload consists solely of IP datagrams, it is possible to provide a point-to-point connection in which the pseudowire connects Attachment Circuits of different technologies. This requires the PEs to perform a function known as "ARP Mediation". ARP Mediation refers to the process of resolving Layer 2 addresses when different resolution protocols are used on either Attachment Circuit. The methods described in this document are applicable even when the CEs run a routing protocol between them, as long as the routing protocol runs over IP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-18.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-18.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-10-31144256.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart--