From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Tue Apr 2 06:59:35 2013 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 253FC21F8AD8 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 06:59:35 -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 SZvsBLesb9rI for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 06:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe01.verizon.com (fldsmtpe01.verizon.com [140.108.26.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4C621F8AD5 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 06:59:34 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi02.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.144]) by fldsmtpe01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2013 13:59:33 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,393,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="446204673" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb03.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.86]) by fldsmtpi02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2013 13:59:33 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.45]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB03.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.86]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:59:42 -0400 To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:59:04 -0400 Subject: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-08 Thread-Topic: [l2vpn] WG last call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-08 Thread-Index: Ac4vqlK7I2iR5JxGRk21tboSMaPjgA== 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/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD7FC6277CCD7nabilnbitarverizoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Giles Heron , "ostokes@extremenetworks.com" , "florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com" , "donald.fedyk@alcatel-lucent.com" 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, 02 Apr 2013 13:59:35 -0000 --_000_CD7FC6277CCD7nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the draft "LDP E= xtensions for Optimized MAC Address Withdrawal in H-VPLS". The draft can b= e found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-08 Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group e= mail list by responding to this email. You are encouraged to send extensive= comments as you see fit. This WG last call will close on Tuesday April 16, 2013. Regards, Nabil & Giles --_000_CD7FC6277CCD7nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
=
This is the start of a two-week working group last call on the dra= ft "LDP Extensions for Optimized MAC Ad= dress Withdrawal in H-VPLS".  The draft can be found at http://tools.ie= tf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-08

Please, review the draft and send any comments to the L2VPN working group e= mail list by responding to this email. You are encouraged to send extensive= comments as you see fit.

This WG last call will close on Tuesday April 16, 2013.
 
Regards,
Nabil & Giles


<= /div> --_000_CD7FC6277CCD7nabilnbitarverizoncom_-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Apr 3 09:28:51 2013 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 E1AF921F8F15; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:28:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.534 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, FUZZY_VLIUM=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 HnfDLu538P+d; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827E421F8F07; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:28:51 -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-04.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.43 Message-ID: <20130403162851.27550.42918.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:28:51 -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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:28:52 -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 Working = Group of the IETF. Title : Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in L2VPN Author(s) : Simon Delord Frederic Jounay Lu Huang Zhihua Liu Manuel Paul Ruediger Kunze Nick Del Regno Josh Rogers Filename : draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2013-04-03 Abstract: This document provides functional requirements for Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) support in multipoint L2VPN solutions (referred to as simply L2VPN). It is intended that potential solutions will use these requirements as guidelines. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From giles.heron@gmail.com Thu Apr 4 04:29:10 2013 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 8E8C521F963E for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 04:29:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.307 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 gHwF3KPaIAbb for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 04:29:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x234.google.com (mail-ea0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81FD21F9633 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 04:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f180.google.com with SMTP id d10so961776eaj.39 for ; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 04:29:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=7MQbLac1FWFxAkz51B+TJn5oUSGQKgLlk3glpd1T50I=; b=ZFKDDwzOUJvNtd7Wd9hdwzo4ohSzaTm36n5vyGuyL+iR6LS65jywrKi055+R7tZ7CD zHHHUe2zim4+YD4aotGNUskTOmPbMly4RzdRaj4SMFFc4St4G2Tw1nuVw7hEhjj/Q8vj IMUqkH+eG0skDQVFnPURb/thKvlRMgJpiNvLFg5h2ER0ZnM52ZIkzqwYRMYg6nDSZSNd Z+93CmAdk9s+yqiMkmJGVus+ODdaZlAFZ2+b66K7G/yGncMS2JRSVDd5i9+lLl0WtuCR ej8jO1SDf8kOHHwyQ1joKDdxtsbBrYI+d2dS18x7hY6FXNSBHpgPNz0kzb+1kKzqoZNP u5rQ== X-Received: by 10.15.101.200 with SMTP id bp48mr10139076eeb.38.1365074948708; Thu, 04 Apr 2013 04:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp4717.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 44sm10891313eek.5.2013.04.04.04.29.06 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Apr 2013 04:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt From: Giles Heron In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:29:03 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <83FEE822-F3F2-47BF-A34F-C1AB6B71635C@gmail.com> References: To: "Boldy, Richard" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) 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, 04 Apr 2013 11:29:10 -0000 Thanks Rich WG - please take a moment to review the draft and to give feedback. I'd be particularly interested in feedback from SPs as to whether they = see this as a requirement for their VPLS networks. Giles On 21 Mar 2013, at 15:13, "Boldy, Richard" = wrote: > Hi, >=20 > At the request of one of our Chairs (Giles) the REQ draft below = replaces my original draft - "draft-l2vpn-vlpm' as a requirements draft = for this solution. >=20 > Once reviewed and chewed I'll be submitting my proposed solution draft = (as per my original ID) but I welcome any others.=20 >=20 > Let's put the solution discussion on the shelf for now till we get a = good peer review on this REQ. >=20 > Kind regards > Rich./ >=20 >=20 >=20 > Rich Boldy > Principal Engineer > National Network Operations Engineering > Advanced Technology Group > CCNP MEF-CECP > =20 > >=20 > 13820 Sunrise Valley Dr | Herndon, VA 20171 > Office: (703) 713 1573 > Mobile: > (512) 673-2719 > Email: > richard.boldy@twcable.com > AIM:rboldytwc >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > From: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" > To: Richard Boldy > Subject: New Version Notification for = draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt >=20 >=20 > A new version of I-D, draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Time Warner Cable and posted to the > IETF repository. >=20 > Filename: draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req > Revision: 00 > Title: VPLS External Loop Detection and Protection Requirements > Creation date: 2013-03-21 > Group: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 6 > URL: = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt > Status: = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req > Htmlized: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00 >=20 >=20 > Abstract: > Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) implementations, as defined in > [RFC4761] and [RFC4762], are highly susceptible to layer-2 loops > external to the PE customer-facing interface. Such loops impact > performance and can have a detrimental affect on all VPLS traffic > throughout the entire instance under certain conditions. >=20 > Current Layer-2 loop detection and protection mechanisms do not > function effectively here. >=20 > This document describes the requirements for a protocol function > to offer VPLS service providers a mechanism for detecting such > layer-2 loops and facilitating configurable actions without the > need for inter-operation with customer network protocols, other > VPLS PEs or customer sourced frames. >=20 > = =20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF Secretariat >=20 >=20 >=20 > 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. From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Thu Apr 4 11:12:06 2013 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 7BE2421F8CF8 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:12:06 -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 8sLczw8EWbpt for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:12:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omzsmtpe02.verizonbusiness.com (omzsmtpe02.verizonbusiness.com [199.249.25.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87CF321F8CCB for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:12:05 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi02.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.144]) by omzsmtpe02.verizonbusiness.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2013 18:12:04 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,410,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="447918637" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb04.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.83]) by fldsmtpi02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2013 18:12:04 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.45.45]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB04.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.83]) with mapi; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:12:09 -0400 To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:11:55 -0400 Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Topic: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Index: Ac4xX+xK9+scNETWSfOURSKGClmWzg== 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/14.2.3.120616 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD7FCADC7CCF2nabilnbitarverizoncom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:39:55 -0700 Cc: 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: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:12:06 -0000 --_000_CD7FCADC7CCF2nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-et= ree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in L2VPN, in order to ensu= re that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs = 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to t= his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not bee= n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has be= en received from each author and contributor. If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR = that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft c= an be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013. Thanks, Nabil & Giles --_000_CD7FCADC7CCF2nabilnbitarverizoncom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

We are polling= for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree S= upport in L2VPN, in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).=  

If you are listed as a docum= ent author o= r contributor,  please respond to this email whether or not you ar= e aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from eac= h author and contributor.

If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed= as an author of an= y IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF = rules. The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-r= eqt-04

This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2= 013.

<= /span>
Thanks,
Nabil & = Giles



--_000_CD7FCADC7CCF2nabilnbitarverizoncom_-- From nick.delregno@verizon.com Thu Apr 4 11:41:03 2013 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 68CBF21F8E7E for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:41:03 -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 U6d-9jdaghR3 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:41:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe02.verizon.com (fldsmtpe02.verizon.com [140.108.26.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5315921F8DAC for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 11:40:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi01.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.143]) by fldsmtpe02.verizon.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2013 18:40:56 +0000 From: "DelRegno, Christopher N \(Nick\)" To: "Bitar, Nabil N" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,410,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="454227420" Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb02.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.189]) by fldsmtpi01.verizon.com with ESMTP; 04 Apr 2013 18:40:56 +0000 Received: from FHDP1LUMXC7V42.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.125.37]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.189]) with mapi; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:41:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:40:53 -0400 Subject: RE: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Topic: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Index: Ac4xX+xK9+scNETWSfOURSKGClmWzgAA9wdA 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B6FFA85F9E0CFD45B2769CF63B342611C79F0924FHDP1LUMXC7V42u_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:39:55 -0700 Cc: 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: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:41:03 -0000 --_000_B6FFA85F9E0CFD45B2769CF63B342611C79F0924FHDP1LUMXC7V42u_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nabil/Giles: I am not aware of any relevant IPR which has not been properly disclosed. Thanks, Nick Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno, PMTS Metro Enterprise Network Product Technology & Strategy, CNT 400 International Pkwy Richardson, TX 75081 Tel: 972-729-3411 From: Bitar, Nabil N Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 1:12 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: Giles Heron; raymond.key@ieee.org; simon.delord@gmail.com; frederic.jou= nay@orange.ch; huanglu@chinamobile.com; zhliu@gsta.com; manuel.paul@telekom= .de; ruediger.kunze@telekom.de; DelRegno, Christopher N (Nick); josh.rogers= @twcable.com Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-= etree-reqt-04 Hi, We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-et= ree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in L2VPN, in order to ensu= re that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs = 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to t= his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not bee= n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has be= en received from each author and contributor. If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR = that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft c= an be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013. Thanks, Nabil & Giles --_000_B6FFA85F9E0CFD45B2769CF63B342611C79F0924FHDP1LUMXC7V42u_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nabil/Gil= es:

 

I am not aware of any relevant IPR which = has not been properly disclosed.

=  

Thanks,=

Nick

 

Christopher N. “Nick” Del Regno, PMTS

Metro Enterprise Network Product Technology &a= mp; Strategy, CNT

400 Inte= rnational Pkwy

Richardson,= TX  75081

Tel: 972-7= 29-3411

 <= /span>

 

 

From: Bitar, Nabil N
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 1:12 P= M
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Cc: Giles Heron; raymond.key@ieee.= org; simon.delord@gmail.com; frederic.jounay@orange.ch; huanglu@chinamobile= .com; zhliu@gsta.com; manuel.paul@telekom.de; ruediger.kunze@telekom.de; De= lRegno, Christopher N (Nick); josh.rogers@twcable.com
Subject: Po= lling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-= 04

 <= /p>

Hi,=

 

We are polling for knowledge of any = IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in L2VPN, in order to ensure that IPR has = been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879,= 3669 and 5378 for more details). 

 

If you are l= isted as a document author or contributor,  please respond t= o this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not = been properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a respons= e has been received from each author and contributor.

 

If y= ou are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or c= ontributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of an= y IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.&= nbsp;The draft can be found at&n= bsp;h= ttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04=

 

<= /div>

This p= oll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013.=

 

=

Thanks,

Nabil & Giles=

 

 

 

= --_000_B6FFA85F9E0CFD45B2769CF63B342611C79F0924FHDP1LUMXC7V42u_-- From josh.rogers@twcable.com Thu Apr 4 12:16:51 2013 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 D130421F942C for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, 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 R8BEZtNv0gKb for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6232221F9413 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.12 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,410,1363147200"; d="scan'208,217";a="53628384" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.12]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 04 Apr 2013 15:16:06 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.78]) by PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.12]) with mapi; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:16:34 -0400 From: "Rogers, Josh" To: "Bitar, Nabil N" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:16:33 -0400 Subject: Re: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Topic: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Index: Ac4xaOuhs6WQC/d5QgeUPHGaHPflVg== 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/14.3.2.130206 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD833BA935E97joshrogerstwcablecom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:39:55 -0700 Cc: 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: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:16:51 -0000 --_000_CD833BA935E97joshrogerstwcablecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gents, I am not aware of any relevant IPR which has not been properly disclosed. Thanks, Josh Rogers From: , Nabil N > Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013 1:11 PM To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Cc: Giles Heron >, "raymond.key= @ieee.org" >, "simon.delord@gmail.com" <= simon.delord@gmail.com>, "frederic.jounay@or= ange.ch" >, "huanglu@chinamobile.com" >, "z= hliu@gsta.com" >, "manuel.paul@telekom.de" >, "ruediger.kunze@telekom.de" >, "DelRegno, Christopher N (Nick)" >, Joshua Rogers > Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-= etree-reqt-04 Hi, We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-et= ree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in L2VPN, in order to ensu= re that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs = 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to t= his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not bee= n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has be= en received from each author and contributor. If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR = that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft c= an be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013. Thanks, Nabil & 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. --_000_CD833BA935E97joshrogerstwcablecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gents,


I am not aware of any relevant IPR which has not been pro= perly disclosed.


Thanks,
Josh Rogers

From: <Bitar>, Nabil N <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>= ;
Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013 1:11 = PM
To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2v= pn@ietf.org>
Cc: Giles Heron <giheron@cisco.com>, "raymond.key@ieee.org" <raymond.key@ieee.org>, "simon.delord@gmail.com" <simon.delord@gmail.com&g= t;, "frederic.jounay@oran= ge.ch" <frederic.j= ounay@orange.ch>, "h= uanglu@chinamobile.com" <huanglu@chinamobile.com= >, "zhliu@gsta.com" <= zhliu@gsta.com>, "manuel.paul@telekom.de" <manuel.paul@telekom.de>, "ruediger.kunze@telekom.= de" <ruediger.kunz= e@telekom.de>, "DelRegno, Christopher N (Nick)" <nick.delregno@verizon.com>, Joshua Rogers <josh.rogers@t= wcable.com>
Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-T= ree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04

Hi,

We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applie= s to draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree S= upport in L2VPN, in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IET= F IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). 

If you are listed as a document author&= nbsp;or contributor,  please respond to this email whether or not you ar= e aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from eac= h author and contributor.

If = you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then= please explicitly respond only if you are aware of an= y IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF = rules. The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-r= eqt-04

This poll closes on Th= ursday April 11, 2013.

Thanks,
Nabil & Giles




This E-mail and any of its a= ttachments 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 a= re not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that = any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to th= e contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have receiv= ed this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanent= ly delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
 --_000_CD833BA935E97joshrogerstwcablecom_-- From Frederic.Jounay@orange.ch Thu Apr 4 23:41:47 2013 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 15FC021F96EE for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:41:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 QJfcyTSMVBPi for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp20.eds.ch (smtp20.eds.ch [195.160.148.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A9521F96EA for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2013 23:41:44 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c3a09428-b7f336d0000066aa-1d-515e7225fc57 Received: from chbbochs054.orange.ch (Unknown_Domain [204.104.149.85]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp20.eds.ch () with SMTP id 84.FC.26282.6227E515; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:41:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from CHCROCHC051.orange.ch ([fe80:0000:0000:0000:704b:3a68:12.14.247.83]) by chbbochs054.orange.ch ([172.25.9.54]) with mapi; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:41:41 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jounay_Fr=E9d=E9ric?= To: "Bitar, Nabil N" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:41:40 +0200 Subject: RE: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Topic: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Index: Ac4xX+xK9+scNETWSfOURSKGClmWzgAA9wdAABksnHA= Message-ID: <78046FD1C8FE0345AFBC11640A8DF6E2017F5FD1887C@CHCROCHC051.orange.ch> 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_78046FD1C8FE0345AFBC11640A8DF6E2017F5FD1887CCHCROCHC051_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrAIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVyJmNqqK5aUVygQcsUVot7DTuZLa7+ecdu MXfxHxaLx98OsVv8fPOZ1eLdgXNMFn3f1rJYtM/nt2juv89kMf/yTlYHLo95FxayeUz5vZHV Y+esu+weXx7sY/N4OuEgk8eSJT+ZPNpeKnisXvOKxaP1u2gAZxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxrlF 85gLVsZWHF55mrmB8U9IFyMHh4SAicSq8yZdjJxAppjEhXvr2boYuTiEBFqYJBa8nswC4axi lDiwezYbSBWbgJvEkitTmUBsEYFQieNn25hAipgFOpglHr9cyAqSYBFQkWidv4QFxBYWiJP4 8249C0RDvMTWxbNYQTaLCFhJ7LigChLmFQiQmLDvETuILSSwiVFi1lt+EJtTIFJi7ovvYLsY ga77fmoNmM0sIC5x68l8JoirBSSW7DnPDGGLSrx8/I8Vol5U4k77ekaI+nyJGx8+MkPsEpQ4 OfMJywRG0VlIRs1CUjYLSRlEXE/ixtQpbBC2tsSyha+ZIWxdiRn/DrEgiy9gZF/FyFucW1Jg ZKCXmlKsl5yxiREY74cXTNHYwbjskvkhRgEORiUe3sy+2EAh1sSy4srcQ4wSHMxKIrw7+eIC hXhTEiurUovy44tKc1KLDzFKc7AoifM+ORUYKCSQnliSmp2aWpBaBJNl4uCUamBkWFUccumN 6GObDJcsU4tM6Vy9eOtljA8M2u7MXiqdc6fFPy4k95R0YMu+s0xZDybb/O83/5I5Y8/mhzuv 5t+f6xJYv3ae++8JU25sOf/NdueHiQsrboT9yC+5mvC/9e/SdYkOsbUFqn5uKrsSrbnmfb6W W7+YV7CmdqfJIcHn5x4z2JleefxZiaU4I9FQi7moOBEAhj5RcvMCAAA= X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:39:55 -0700 Cc: 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: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:41:47 -0000 --_000_78046FD1C8FE0345AFBC11640A8DF6E2017F5FD1887CCHCROCHC051_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Not aware about any patent related to this draft BR Fred From: Bitar, Nabil N Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 1:12 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: Giles Heron; raymond.key@ieee.org; simon.d= elord@gmail.com; frederic.jounay@orange.ch; huanglu@chinamobile.com; zhliu@gsta.com; manuel.paul@telekom.= de; ruediger.kunze@telekom.de; DelRegno, Christopher N (Nick); josh.rogers@twcable.co= m Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-= etree-reqt-04 Hi, We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-et= ree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in L2VPN, in order to ensu= re that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs = 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to t= his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not bee= n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has be= en received from each author and contributor. If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR = that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft c= an be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013. Thanks, Nabil & Giles --_000_78046FD1C8FE0345AFBC11640A8DF6E2017F5FD1887CCHCROCHC051_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi

 

Not aware about any paten= t related to this draft

BR

Fred

&n= bsp;

 

 

From: B= itar, Nabil N
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 1:12 PM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Cc: Giles= Heron; raymond.key@ieee.org; <= a href=3D"mailto:simon.delord@gmail.com">simon.delord@gmail.com; frederic.jounay@orange.ch; huanglu@chinamobile.com; zhliu@gsta.com; manuel.paul@telekom.de; ruediger.kunze@telekom.de; DelRegno, Christopher N (Nick); = josh.rogers@twcable.com
<= b>Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-= l2vpn-etree-reqt-04

<= span lang=3DEN-US> 

Hi,

 

We are polling f= or knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04= , Requirements for MEF= E-Tree Support in L2VPN, in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compli= ance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more detai= ls). 

=

 

If= you are listed as a document author or contributor,  please resp= ond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR tha= t has not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until= a response has been received from each author and contributor.=

 

If you are on the l2vpn WG ema= il list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please ex= plicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet bee= n disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft can be found at https://tool= s.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04

=

 

This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013.

 

Thanks,<= span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-ser= if";color:black'>

Nabil & Giles

 

 

 

= --_000_78046FD1C8FE0345AFBC11640A8DF6E2017F5FD1887CCHCROCHC051_-- From Manuel.Paul@telekom.de Fri Apr 5 02:31:22 2013 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 C467321F96F8 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:31:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, 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 8tUN59sPOUZ6 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail43.telekom.de (tcmail43.telekom.de [80.149.113.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8385C21F96A0 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 02:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113415.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.65.81]) by tcmail41.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 05 Apr 2013 11:31:18 +0200 Received: from HE101452.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.125.92.148]) by HE113415.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:31:18 +0200 From: To: , Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:31:18 +0200 Subject: RE: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Topic: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Index: Ac4xX+xK9+scNETWSfOURSKGClmWzgAef6vA Message-ID: <9435EDACD941174099E143BCA2BCD6150100655F8E1C@HE101452.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9435EDACD941174099E143BCA2BCD6150100655F8E1CHE101452eme_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:39:53 -0700 Cc: giheron@cisco.com, RKunze@telekom.de 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, 05 Apr 2013 09:31:22 -0000 --_000_9435EDACD941174099E143BCA2BCD6150100655F8E1CHE101452eme_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Nabil & Giles, I am not aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed. Regards, Manuel ________________________________ From: Bitar, Nabil N [mailto:nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 8:12 PM To: l2vpn@ietf.org Cc: Giles Heron; raymond.key@ieee.org; simon.delord@gmail.com; frederic.jou= nay@orange.ch; huanglu@chinamobile.com; zhliu@gsta.com; Paul, Manuel; Kunze= , R=FCdiger; DelRegno, Christopher N (Nick); josh.rogers@twcable.com Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-= etree-reqt-04 Hi, We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-et= ree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in L2VPN, in order to ensu= re that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs = 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to t= his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not bee= n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has be= en received from each author and contributor. If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR = that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft c= an be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013. Thanks, Nabil & Giles --_000_9435EDACD941174099E143BCA2BCD6150100655F8E1CHE101452eme_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Nabil = &=20 Giles,
 
I am not = aware of=20 any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed.
 
Regards,
Manuel=20

From: Bitar, Nabil N=20 [mailto:nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 201= 3=20 8:12 PM
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Cc: Giles Heron;=20 raymond.key@ieee.org; simon.delord@gmail.com; frederic.jounay@orange.ch;=20 huanglu@chinamobile.com; zhliu@gsta.com; Paul, Manuel; Kunze, R=FCdiger; De= lRegno,=20 Christopher N (Nick); josh.rogers@twcable.com
Subject: Polling fo= r IPR=20 on the E-Tree Requirements draft=20 draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04

Hi,
=
=
= We are polling for knowledge of any IPR=20 that a= pplies to=20 draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04, Requirements for ME= F E-Tree=20 Support in L2VPN,= in order=20 to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in = compliance with IETF IPR rules (= see=20 RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). 
=
= If you are listed as a document=20 author or contributor,=20  please respond = to this email whether or not you= are=20 aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed.=20 The draft will not be = adopted=20 until a response has been received from each = author and=20 contributor.

=
If you = are on=20 the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please expl= icitly=20 respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been= =20 disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. T= he draft=20 can be found at https://= tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04
<= /DIV>

This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013.

Thanks,
Nabil & Giles



 --_000_9435EDACD941174099E143BCA2BCD6150100655F8E1CHE101452eme_-- From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Apr 5 03:23:18 2013 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 D5B3121F853D for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:23:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 5MqaWuoQhasb for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31AEE21F845A for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 03:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-63.lucent.com [135.5.2.63]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r35ANDg4012082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:23:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r35AN8rN026261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Apr 2013 06:23:12 -0400 Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.111) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 06:23:09 -0400 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.160]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:23:02 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: "Bitar, Nabil N" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Topic: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Thread-Index: AQHOMeeNGBlEiFOwf06+atUJKRkJ1g== Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:23:02 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD8472A2475E2wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 Cc: 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: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:23:19 -0000 --_000_CD8472A2475E2wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Not aware of IPR From: , Nabil Bitar > Date: Thursday 4 April 2013 20:11 To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Cc: Giles Heron > Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-= etree-reqt-04 Hi, We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-et= ree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in L2VPN, in order to ensu= re that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs = 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to t= his email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not bee= n properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has be= en received from each author and contributor. If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR = that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft c= an be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013. Thanks, Nabil & Giles --_000_CD8472A2475E2wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Not aware of IPR

From: <Bitar>, Nabil Bitar &l= t;nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
Date: Thursday 4 April 2013 20:11 To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2v= pn@ietf.org>
Cc: Giles Heron <giheron@cisco.com>
Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-T= ree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04

Hi,

We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applie= s to draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree S= upport in L2VPN, in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IET= F IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). 

If you are listed as a document author&= nbsp;or contributor,  please respond to this email whether or not you ar= e aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from eac= h author and contributor.

If = you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then= please explicitly respond only if you are aware of an= y IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF = rules. The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-r= eqt-04

This poll closes on Th= ursday April 11, 2013.

Thanks,
Nabil & Giles



 --_000_CD8472A2475E2wimhenderickxalcatellucentcom_-- From raymond.key@hotmail.com Fri Apr 5 05:03:21 2013 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 647E621F89DB for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:03:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, 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 NESBW0GKtXXy for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blu0-omc2-s35.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s35.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.110]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A638E21F89D3 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BLU175-W8 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s35.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:03:19 -0700 X-EIP: [le4XBn0NlGq6wnbtEyfTMPdhPVgOJS/DL8TaIeQOyT4=] X-Originating-Email: [raymond.key@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_470a87ee-3862-4dd5-888f-af2053aa46f5_" From: Raymond Key Sender: To: "Bitar, Nabil N" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "giheron@cisco.com" Subject: RE: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 23:03:19 +1100 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: , MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2013 12:03:19.0993 (UTC) FILETIME=[9069E290:01CE31F5] 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, 05 Apr 2013 12:03:21 -0000 --_470a87ee-3862-4dd5-888f-af2053aa46f5_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi WG Chairs=2C I am not aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed. Ra= ymond Key From: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com CC: giheron@cisco.com=3B raymond.key@ieee.org=3B simon.delord@gmail.com=3B = frederic.jounay@orange.ch=3B huanglu@chinamobile.com=3B zhliu@gsta.com=3B m= anuel.paul@telekom.de=3B ruediger.kunze@telekom.de=3B nick.delregno@verizon= .com=3B josh.rogers@twcable.com To: l2vpn@ietf.org Date: Thu=2C 4 Apr 2013 14:11:55 -0400 Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-= etree-reqt-04 Hi=2C We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies=0A= to draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04=2C Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support i= n L2VPN=2C in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance=0A= with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979=2C 4879=2C 3669 and 5378 for more detai= ls).=20 If you are listed as a document author or=0A= contributor=2C please respond to this email whether or not you are aware = of any relevant IPR that has not been properly=0A= disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response has been receive= d from each author=0A= and contributor. If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or co= ntributor=2C then please explicitly respond only if you are=0A= aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF = rules. The=0A= draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-r= eqt-04 This poll closes on Thursday April 11=2C 2013. Thanks=2CNabil & Giles = --_470a87ee-3862-4dd5-888f-af2053aa46f5_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi WG Chairs=2C
I am not awar= e of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed.
Raymond Key
 =3B
 =3B=
From: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
CC: gihero= n@cisco.com=3B raymond.key@ieee.org=3B simon.delord@gmail.com=3B frederic.j= ounay@orange.ch=3B huanglu@chinamobile.com=3B zhliu@gsta.com=3B manuel.paul= @telekom.de=3B ruediger.kunze@telekom.de=3B nick.delregno@verizon.com=3B jo= sh.rogers@twcable.com
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Date: Thu=2C 4 Apr 2013 14:1= 1:55 -0400
Subject: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft dra= ft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04

Hi=2C

We are polling for= knowledge of any IPR that =3Bapplies=0A= to draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04=2C =3BRequirements for MEF = E-Tree Support in L2VPN=2C in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed= in =3Bcompliance=0A= with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979=2C 4879=2C 3669 and 5378 for more detai= ls). =3B

If you are listed as a document author =3Bor=0A= contributor=2C  =3Bplease respond =3Bto this email whethe= r or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly=0A= disclosed. The =3Bdraft will not be adopted until a response has been received= from each =3Bauthor=0A= and contributor.

If you are on the l2= vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author =3Bor contributor=2C then please ex= plicitly respond only if you are=0A= aware =3B= of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF =3B= rules. =3B= The=0A= draft can be found at =3Bhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draf= t-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04
<= /span>

= This poll closes on Thursday April 11=2C 2013.<= /span>
<= br>
Thanks=2C
Nabil &=3B Giles



= --_470a87ee-3862-4dd5-888f-af2053aa46f5_-- From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Apr 5 05:47:02 2013 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 997C521F9751 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:47:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.953, 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 hSH+JMRyja3H for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E1721F9759 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id c41so444748eek.31 for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 05:47:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=wAv7gIi9b3xSj4Qr/HMCq75CEprzNvuYAd0KY3Ib8nU=; b=y02U1LGR/xrnTVr+TWLVfWnOlUdgyfCZeV9OHoUhe9QAQsGaG2/rmH69Bqnq9zUSC2 yqzWRi+7y/sEGI+MFVXbg7K4nHHOuY/9sp/evVYSvpKAlvBNYkMXyBr3scr61wEm7ub6 mKz+T4g13Y1v7ROSkgCfju84d5kpX6xwjGfUXrY47UHha7D6MKqC88mnEtMncJz0KSso QKvzy27PaTq6J6RDkur5wktUYPKf45UaOpgAASfAbglToqUxvuXOyOmXxJpbtTJej4bJ 6ryOdUuHydW7iOE4bNd+3dNmpbkIHQjcov3NQTAP927ROyJ2ahjTnEqnet4VxuIC/QyR RFDg== X-Received: by 10.15.32.67 with SMTP id z43mr9988456eeu.24.1365166020998; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 05:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp4717.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q42sm15252148eem.14.2013.04.05.05.46.59 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Apr 2013 05:46:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Giles Heron Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:46:07 +0100 Message-Id: <5E2D53D0-9C00-44A7-A67F-DCE287045531@gmail.com> To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) 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, 05 Apr 2013 12:47:02 -0000 Hi, We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to = draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", = in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF = IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).=20 =20 If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to = this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not = been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a = response has been received from each author and contributor. =20 If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author or = contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any = IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The = draft can be found at = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02. =20 This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. Thanks. Nabil & Giles= From sajassi@cisco.com Fri Apr 5 09:57:19 2013 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 3352A21F982E for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:57:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 grhZgEX0abXK for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF6A21F982D for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 09:57:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1139; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1365181037; x=1366390637; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=VBqFvgYAihsBLD1f76yY2Uso4VNhCk9L2kbZbT8PUsA=; b=cHqyWny1rre/pc3KR6rDFEdKIbpQdYLF8nCJY291dHKb3N4DJEzQFYRC DgNqsi/D+cSJIAxwKwYDDwbXqQaLCVXBwgASxAHhihUIoM/Q1mcxQ0W3V wcZqZHs75A3/ZGH7AHBuwiuC39VBmmm8GBCjzXj3STnkzuikB1XuomlTN 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAC4BX1GtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABLgmUhNsEigQ0WdIIhAQQ6UQEIIhQxESUCBAESCId6Aw8BC7dvDYlZBIxJgRCBETiCX2EDkyiBZo1ShRuDC4FzNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,415,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="192537157" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2013 16:57:17 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r35GvHoN018237 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:57:17 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:57:16 -0500 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Topic: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Index: AQHOMfu3idcQ9kgiKUm7j9BFLfM6eZjHt8CA Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:56:08 +0000 Message-ID: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1231CC78@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5E2D53D0-9C00-44A7-A67F-DCE287045531@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.87] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9C32C75D0AEE2848ADC52E97EFCEC3AA@emea.cisco.com> 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, 05 Apr 2013 16:57:19 -0000 I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft that hasn't already been disclosed. Cheers, Ali On 4/5/13 5:46 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >Hi, > >We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to >draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in >order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR >rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >=20 >If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to >this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not >been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a >response has been received from each author and contributor. >=20 >If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author or >contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any >IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The >draft can be found at >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02. >=20 >This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. > >Thanks. > >Nabil & Giles From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Apr 5 10:42:06 2013 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 2D7FC21F9864 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 Yc664cR2AuD2 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D06F21F985E for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-63.lucent.com [135.5.2.63]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r35Hg1aL008468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:42:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.35]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r35Hg0h1005680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:42:01 -0400 Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.74) by US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:42:00 -0400 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.160]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 19:41:58 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Topic: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Index: AQHOMfu0YBD1LI+27UW9r00gT5NIu5jH5cYA Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 17:41:57 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5E2D53D0-9C00-44A7-A67F-DCE287045531@gmail.com> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1097FC1D1AFADE469C9DCFDE3B77981C@exchange.lucent.com> 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: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:42:06 -0000 Not aware of IPR On 05/04/13 14:46, "Giles Heron" wrote: >Hi, > >We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to >draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in >order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR >rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >=20 >If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to >this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not >been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a >response has been received from each author and contributor. >=20 >If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author or >contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any >IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The >draft can be found at >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02. >=20 >This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. > >Thanks. > >Nabil & Giles From simon.delord@gmail.com Sat Apr 6 20:05:53 2013 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 1EB0F21F8E4E for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:05:53 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 ECkj4i9b1YTs for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C35E21F8E47 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id gw10so4379466lab.41 for ; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:05:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9GuekDNy/OiFNet0xXMr+xP1h1DskJT4NRuwvt6xCGg=; b=YpLRu2lBaxC8t3PXgkJ2tmxxsL/kpHGHNWVP9fnOeM7l4z6/ZRvavziWBbC+2yZ/LU cxGRo0UsJCEXcEqui+N1PrvbtDstF/08QatfGC9A+1vmpwkZtJcG2rUgFiXhYCGsRKDC 4/msj7W8grxA6K9xXegDZUToQp/GSLtvT1rlx7fq4Tm2sevPMDRuG4N7vMSnUklqH5m3 Kc/UFBhQI1kOMM3BG+Ff1zgLmNeG9FQPSYRX3n4z8vRdIGhjbH7mPdX44Ehlmb7UNm6q c4YLLgL+xPNqPQVSijQh3KBzdoS5HjB8V3wFuZD3rD3w7oObyBQ4C9KLvwNrWqJp65Ky SbGw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.87.105 with SMTP id w9mr8878735lbz.14.1365303950467; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:05:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.10.41 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Apr 2013 20:05:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 13:05:50 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Polling for IPR on the E-Tree Requirements draft draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 From: Simon Delord To: "Bitar, Nabil N" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554e106fa6a3104d9bc9801 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:38:33 -0700 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , 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, 07 Apr 2013 03:05:53 -0000 --bcaec554e106fa6a3104d9bc9801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi there, I'm not aware of any IPR. regards, Simon 2013/4/5 Bitar, Nabil N > Hi, > > We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to > draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04, Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in > L2VPN, in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with > IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to > this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not > been properly disclosed. The draft will not be adopted until a response > has been received from each author and contributor. > > If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but are not listed as an author or > contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any > IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The > draft can be found at > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04 > > This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013. > > Thanks, > Nabil & Giles > > > > --bcaec554e106fa6a3104d9bc9801 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi there,
I'm not aware of any IPR.
rega= rds,
Simon


2013/4/5 Bitar, Nabil N <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.= com>
Hi,

We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that=A0applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04,=A0Requirements for MEF E-Tree Support in L2VPN, in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in=A0= compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).= =A0

If you are listed as a document author=A0or contributor, =A0please respond=A0to= this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not b= een properly disclosed. The=A0draft will not be adopted until= a response has been received from each=A0author and contributor.

If you are on the l2vpn WG email list but ar= e not listed as an author=A0or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware=A0of any IPR t= hat has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF=A0rules.=A0The draft can be found at=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iet= f-l2vpn-etree-reqt-04

This poll closes on Thursday April 11, 2013.

Thanks,
Nabil & G= iles




--bcaec554e106fa6a3104d9bc9801-- From raggarwa_1@yahoo.com Sun Apr 7 16:11:42 2013 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 A1B9821F8FA4 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:11:42 -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 E4xfQN0ER6DF for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm37-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm37-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.229.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6AAE21F8F9D for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.48] by nm37.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2013 23:11:41 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.173] by tm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2013 23:11:41 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1029.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Apr 2013 23:11:41 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 162263.59258.bm@omp1029.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 86660 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Apr 2013 23:11:41 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1365376301; bh=PD2OFkzArdCpI8lXRkRjpEMmsd1qSj3yD5k+CB8EAoM=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ixNpEFihPNPyQ6gu0msa9EJyfRDoRiLNdNpcSQqTBeoJNzmBvUHdGWGBPQKdlfkC3jtaayRgHPzotT8yIQdqgABJumdd0o3j+PV8u8n9nxJSJDD5WS/DCR5/QDIajzuLuWp7rEsV2zdEEdaWzpgDpyBLgCFXaXglxUjnf3c6DGI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=zJojfE9gLTbnftYf8FaPtp3QNe3vh1z4jmwCN6wt1ukcid2ep4VtlswjVzvnSZbBoiiUTy9BvGPsAd5wc0AG8fG1X61dTjjGxIv0cqjXplVFyQlnoc87O5npKQwPT2ML+j0/zQrXV2NwCuyrgZALYvQT7iwZOYLjSayKA1nn3SA=; X-YMail-OSG: 3IDBBsgVM1m287ukaFnAJoZx5D2xN2Vtewa4UhLA1IPmWXa o2YkawOD5Oh.cWq.XhZCLOOlKsTwzFcVMSVQCx5yAwJ2iaUfbVmHWP.nQV1. O5Hs8fycVOyhcaW3mhm3bw_0Ct3If2.1DV8vVikOJLIe8nX5kNv6823ATbsu F25Ou4W5kTzPusNetj8Fx9E6S2TNFrCDQqG2TX_RrvbvBCXIzFnZaSYrdbDI nmOAJhQTq2DgHS7lBQt87EhpFH9GsVBFfBa3bBY6kD5nSFZT.tekLYwo0xka 1G6qmlfIl.3ypY_Il_XmNkdWd91FPsq3xrgaeB2hBw9xMHisIVYEW4IlJqsc ZqyNOqRgpJDiaue_TO6vbI.LsuVpemxsKhKWMuydbsSPB3Ftl0uJqVO62WjH Zs7.PUTggObbPSs38KbANN4.TuLexmusdSoIgX2QRj.eA3IJ5IYHrlLwPaUE Vtaq0rWWejwZVoxW9X3kmPscATIRRptq930KJtpAq3Xo4w5onP4wAitERTuF wDhdtoy9SerHinmTTqv8AFHg- Received: from [24.130.224.162] by web120002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 16:11:40 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, CkhpIEdpbGVzLAoKSSBhbSBub3QgYXdhcmUgb2YgSVBSIHRoYXQgaGFzIG5vdCBiZWVuIGRpc2Nsb3NlZCB3aXRoIHJlc3BlY3QgdG8gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1sMnZwbi1ldnBuLXJlcS0wMi4KCnJhaHVsCgoKPiBGcm9tOiBHaWxlcyBIZXJvbiA8Z2loZXJvbkBjaXNjby5jb20.Cj4gU3ViamVjdDogRndkOiBJUFIgcG9sbCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1sMnZwbi1ldnBuLXJlcS0wMgo.IERhdGU6IDUgQXByaWwgMjAxMyAxMzo1ODozNSBCU1QKPiBUbzogQWxpIFNhamFzc2kgPHNhamFzc2lAY2lzY28uY29tPiwgUmEBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.140.532 References: <136D0A04DAA0A64881D68D8374E6E07709053394@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> Message-ID: <1365376300.85919.YahooMailNeo@web120002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:11:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Rahul Aggarwal Subject: Re: Fwd: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 To: "Giles Heron \(giheron\)" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" In-Reply-To: <136D0A04DAA0A64881D68D8374E6E07709053394@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-299933220-1318622380-1365376300=:85919" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 02:32:13 -0700 Cc: Ali Sajassi , "\"Clarence Filsfils\"" X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Rahul Aggarwal List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:11:42 -0000 ---299933220-1318622380-1365376300=:85919 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Giles, I am not aware of IPR that has not been disclosed with respect to draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02. rahul > From: Giles Heron > Subject: Fwd: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 > Date: 5 April 2013 13:58:35 BST > To: Ali Sajassi , Rahul Aggarwal , "Wim (Wim) Henderickx" , Aldrin Isaac , James Uttaro , Nabil Bitar , John E Drake , "Clarence Filsfils" , "Samer Salam (ssalam)" > > Hi authors/contributors. > > please do respond to the poll on the WG list (I didn't CC you as it would have caused issues with the system - it doesn't like that many recipients and forces Nabil and I to manually approve such messages... > > actually speaking of author counts we may need to drop one more of you from the list at the head of the draft before it goes to RFC - as 5 is the normal maximum. > > Giles > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Giles Heron >> Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 >> Date: 5 April 2013 13:46:07 BST >> To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" >> Cc: Nabil Bitar >> >> Hi, >> >> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >> >> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a response has been received from each author and contributor. >> >> If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02. >> >> This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Nabil & Giles > ---299933220-1318622380-1365376300=:85919 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Hi Giles,

I am not aware of IPR that has not been disclosed with respect to draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02.

rahul

> From: Giles Heron <giheron@cisco.com>
> Subject: Fwd: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02
> Date: 5 April 2013 13:58:35 BST
> To: Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Rahul Aggarwal <raggarwa_1@yho.com>, "Wim (Wim) Henderickx" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>, Aldrin Isaac <aldrin.isaac@gmail.com>, James Uttaro <uttaro@att.com>, Nabil Bitar <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "Clarence Filsfils" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, "Samer Salam (ssalam)" <ssalam@cisco.com>
>
> Hi authors/contributors.
>
> please do respond to the poll on the WG list (I didn't CC you as it would have caused issues with the system - it doesn't like that many recipients and forces Nabil and I to manually approve such messages...
>
> actually speaking of author counts we may need to drop one more of you from the list at the head of the draft before it goes to RFC - as 5 is the normal maximum.
>
> Giles
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
>> Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02
>> Date: 5 April 2013 13:46:07 BST
>> To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
>> Cc: Nabil Bitar <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>>
>> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a response has been received from each author and contributor.
>>
>> If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02.
>>
>> This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Nabil & Giles
>


---299933220-1318622380-1365376300=:85919-- From sajassi@cisco.com Sun Apr 7 21:47:04 2013 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 2EDFD21F9125 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:47:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 PUwlSX9XMGxT for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:46:59 -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 79B6221F9123 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:46:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12683; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1365396416; x=1366606016; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=c9CAaOLXzKLxSSSeX8GNX3RS1mw5ftghssD17327qi4=; b=BbHHy/hXFEvZ9Ov2Z4ik0DCAqQatzebomBriNzBvG6u3fNuWgrwJxkU6 g4lq0jiM+1E64O1mBP8JDwABQ3NyCd1zUEXVovl7RYyPd1Oa7Ei+coMQa n0ngVIxUvRK7s/vcB0NmuWkDC77dKMEokcESsi/kQqeS4YpOoX2PxeutX M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArsFAD1KYlGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABRgkIjITavD5IWgQUWdIIfAQEBAwF5BQ0BCA4DAwECCx0oERMBCQgCBAENBQiHegMJBgELsnANiVkEjFCBEYERIAYHBAcGglphA4cejA6BZwSIYoRuhRuDC4FzNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,428,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="196043222" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2013 04:46:55 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r384kt8b003387 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 8 Apr 2013 04:46:55 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:46:54 -0500 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: Rahul Aggarwal , "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Topic: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Index: AQHONBQXQPvG2mrXeUii4zY18RqVmQ== Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 04:45:39 +0000 Message-ID: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232BA6A@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <1365376300.85919.YahooMailNeo@web120002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [10.21.67.81] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232BA6Axmbalnx13ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 02:32:13 -0700 Cc: "Clarence Filsfils \(cfilsfil\)" 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, 08 Apr 2013 04:47:04 -0000 --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232BA6Axmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Rahul, Can you please respond to the Gile's original email (below) which had l2vpn= @ietf.org in the cc list. Thanks, Ali From: Rahul Aggarwal > Reply-To: Rahul Aggarwal = > Date: Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:11 PM To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" >, = "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Cc: Cisco Employee >, "\"Wim (W= im) Henderickx\"" >, Aldrin Isaac >, James Uttaro >, Nabi= l Bitar >, John= E Drake >, "Clarence Filsfil= s (cfilsfil)" >, "Samer Salam= (ssalam)" > Subject: Re: Fwd: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Hi Giles, I am not aware of IPR that has not been disclosed with respect to draft-iet= f-l2vpn-evpn-req-02. rahul > From: Giles Heron > > Subject: Fwd: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 > Date: 5 April 2013 13:58:35 BST > To: Ali Sajassi >, Rahul Agga= rwal >, "Wim (Wim) Henderickx= " >, Aldrin Isaac >,= James Uttaro >, Nabil Bitar >, John E Drake >, "Clarence Filsfils" >, "Samer Salam (ssalam)" > > > Hi authors/contributors. > > please do respond to the poll on the WG list (I didn't CC you as it would= have caused issues with the system - it doesn't like that many recipients = and forces Nabil and I to manually approve such messages... > > actually speaking of author counts we may need to drop one more of you fr= om the list at the head of the draft before it goes to RFC - as 5 is the no= rmal maximum. > > Giles > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Giles Heron > >> Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 >> Date: 5 April 2013 13:46:07 BST >> To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > >> Cc: Nabil Bitar > >> >> Hi, >> >> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-l2vpn= -evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in order to ensure t= hat IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979= , 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >> >> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to= this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not b= een properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a response h= as been received from each author and contributor. >> >> If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author or= contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any I= PR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The draf= t can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02. >> >> This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Nabil & Giles > --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232BA6Axmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6612A3E53EC2F147A97C0380FBFED441@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Rahul= ,

Can you = please respond to the Gile's original email (below) which had l2vpn@ietf.org in the cc list. 

Thanks,
Ali

From: Rahul Aggarwal <raggarwa_1@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Rahul Aggarwal <raggarwa_1@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:11 PM=
To: "Giles Heron (giheron)&quo= t; <giheron@cisco.com>, &quo= t;l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Cc: Cisco Employee <sajassi@cisco.com>, "\"Wim (Wim) = Henderickx\"" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>, Aldrin Isaac <aldrin.isaac@gmail.com>, James Uttaro <uttaro@att.com>,= Nabil Bitar <nabil.n.bitar= @verizon.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, &quo= t;Samer Salam (ssalam)" <ssalam= @cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: IPR poll for draf= t-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02


Hi Giles,

I am not aware of IPR that has not been disclosed with respect to draft-iet= f-l2vpn-evpn-req-02.

rahul

> From: Giles Heron <giheron@cisco.com>
> Subject: Fwd: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02
> Date: 5 April 2013 13:58:35 BST
> To: Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Rahul Aggarwal <ragg= arwa_1@yho.com>, "Wim (Wim) Henderickx" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>, Aldrin Isaac <aldrin.isaac@gmail.com>, James Uttaro <= ;uttaro= @att.com>, Nabil Bitar <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com<= /a>>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "Clarence Filsfils"= ; <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, "Samer Salam (ssalam)" <ssalam= @cisco.com>
>
> Hi authors/contributors.
>
> please do respond to the poll on the WG list (I didn't CC you as it wo= uld have caused issues with the system - it doesn't like that many recipien= ts and forces Nabil and I to manually approve such messages...
>
> actually speaking of author counts we may need to drop one more of you= from the list at the head of the draft before it goes to RFC - as 5 is the= normal maximum.
>
> Giles
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
>> Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02
>> Date: 5 April 2013 13:46:07 BST
>> To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
>> Cc: Nabil Bitar <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com&g= t;
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf= -l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in o= rder to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rule= s (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>>
>> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please resp= ond to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has= not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a resp= onse has been received from each author and contributor.
>>
>> If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an aut= hor or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of= any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. Th= e draft can be found at https:= //tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02.
>>
>> This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Nabil & Giles
>


--_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232BA6Axmbalnx13ciscoc_-- From jdrake@juniper.net Mon Apr 8 06:08:53 2013 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 2B4FE21F8ACE for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 06:08:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] 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 fcQAkQHD5luE for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 06:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CF421F8A40 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 06:08:52 -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 ID DSNKUWLBZM3fTcW9iv4fZvQTHZmDl2wPSGHO@postini.com; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 06:08:52 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 06:02:50 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 06:02:50 -0700 Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.31) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 06:05:24 -0700 Received: from mail134-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.253) by VA3EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (10.7.40.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:02:49 +0000 Received: from mail134-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail134-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE291A0093 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:02:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -23 X-BigFish: PS-23(zz9371I542I1432Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1155h) Received: from mail134-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail134-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1365426168112365_21634; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.246]) by mail134-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175B2C01EA; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by VA3EHSMHS003.bigfish.com (10.7.99.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:02:41 +0000 Received: from BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.67]) by BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.100.39]) with mapi id 14.16.0287.008; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:02:41 +0000 From: John E Drake To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Topic: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Index: AQHOMfuytn6Gl/vta0iTM0Hk2IQ+xZjMTpzw Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:02:40 +0000 Message-ID: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D48BB73@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <5E2D53D0-9C00-44A7-A67F-DCE287045531@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5E2D53D0-9C00-44A7-A67F-DCE287045531@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%GMAIL.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net 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, 08 Apr 2013 13:08:53 -0000 Giles, I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Irrespectively Yours, John > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Giles Heron > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 5:46 AM > To: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf- > l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in order to > ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >=20 > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond > to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has > not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a > response has been received from each author and contributor. >=20 > If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author > or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of > any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn- > evpn-req-02. >=20 > This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > Nabil & Giles From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Mon Apr 8 11:39:39 2013 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 89A0721F9485; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.365 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.235, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 xIVcHX9wgcnt; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:39:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7DE221F8E7A; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:39:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: jiangyuanlong@huawei.com, lucyyong@huawei.com, Manuel.Paul@telekom.de, frederic.jounay@orange.ch, florin.balus@alcatel-lucent.com, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com, sajassi@cisco.com Subject: IPR Disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-01 X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.43.p3 Message-ID: <20130408183938.16945.60331.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:39:38 -0700 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:06:03 -0700 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, giheron@cisco.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com 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, 08 Apr 2013 18:39:39 -0000 Dear Yuanlong Jiang, Lucy Yong, Manuel Paul, Frederic JOUNAY, Florin Balus,= Wim Henderickx, Ali Sajassi: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "VPLS PE M= odel for E-Tree Support" (draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree) was submitted to the I= ETF Secretariat on 2013-04-08 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellec= tual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2053/). The = title of the IPR disclosure is "Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pe-etree-01.""); The IETF Secretariat From sajassi@cisco.com Tue Apr 9 14:25:54 2013 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 DD8AB21F994F for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:25:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 hHXD6z4iVYka for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94FB321F994E for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 14:25:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10468; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1365542753; x=1366752353; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=HiCr071qhKRnEPFLWQD9j7xDjZzSiRd4nZKZqqlnblU=; b=DRPDwTSupUuAlxTleiYuDC0/PV4r31lUjUqGt5gYCnRYrS6vewT8BnUN +nElopg+uvs3bnyyipLUoBEcETg6deUZ9Sba4L53juLDP9nzOKfrKcSxK /1WN/keshlhgHClJcb2YVx5+VfxviCgiAQkGOO4gkycwASjscb7EkgV/v I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAAWHZFGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABRgkIjITbBN4EXFnSCHwEBAQQOD0gJCxIBCBEDAQIBCh05FAkIAgQOBQiHegMPAQuuS4ZCDYldjEGBBguBESAGCwcGA4JXYQOYGo9ugwuBczU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,441,1363132800"; d="scan'208,217";a="196826754" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2013 21:25:52 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r39LPq4N000730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:25:52 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:25:52 -0500 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHONWjPjH7gSqv8iEKqvjstwS14ng== Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 21:24:33 +0000 Message-ID: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B12309229@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [10.154.212.235] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543xmbalnx13ciscoc_" 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, 09 Apr 2013 21:25:55 -0000 --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543xmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments haven been ad= dressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for better clarify= in the text for some of the requirements and thus suggesting following the= text with some explicit requirements. As the result, a few additional requ= irements were added to sections 4.3, 4.6, and 10. Please review the changes= and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Ali From: Cisco Employee > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" >, = "Bitar, Nabil N" > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Giles, Nabil: Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to ensure that all = the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been resolved. I have publi= shed rev02 with all the comment resolutions. Cheers, Ali ________________________________ * To: Giles Heron >, Lucy yong = > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 Giles, Nabil: I think all the comments regarding this last call have been resolved. I have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. Regards, Ali On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >Thanks Lucy, > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's comments. >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the draft further. > >thanks. > >Giles > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong wrote: > >> I support this draft but have some comments. >> >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means that requiring >>a dedicated >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi-homing >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. >> >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is in IGP link >>too? or private link. >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be different ASes? If >>yes, state it out. >> >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a requirement for >>flow based load balance. >> >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet L2VPN across >>multi-ASes >> >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are required for >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these service >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use cases where the >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. >> >> Cheers, >> Lucy >> >>> ------------------------------ >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 >>> From: Giles Heron >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii >>> >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >>> >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. >>> >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. >>> >>> Nabil & Giles >> > --_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543xmbalnx13ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <18CE4D17A8D88E4B884DB608B2B01614@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Folks, 

As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments haven be= en addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for better cl= arify in the text for some of the requirements and thus suggesting followin= g the text with some explicit requirements. As the result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, 4= .6, and 10. Please review the changes  and let me know if you have any= questions. 

Thanks,
Ali

From: Cisco Employee <sajassi@cisco.com>
Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:= 10 PM
To: "Giles Heron (giheron)&quo= t; <giheron@cisco.com>, &quo= t;Bitar, Nabil N" <nab= il.n.bitar@verizon.com>
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2v= pn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft= -ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req


Giles, Nabil:

Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to ensure that= all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been resolved. I have = published rev02 with all the comment resolutions.

Cheers,
Ali 


http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req=
-01
>>>=20
>>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft=
 for
>>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG.
>>>=20
>>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November.
>>>=20
>>> Nabil & Giles
>>=20
>
--_000_69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543xmbalnx13ciscoc_-- From giles.heron@gmail.com Fri Apr 12 02:05:12 2013 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 DD9A221F8D11 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:05:12 -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 UAIGbZlPjEx8 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:05:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com (mail-ee0-f51.google.com [74.125.83.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE0821F8D0F for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c4so1131282eek.38 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:05:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=OWbGJH+y27GMuXmgc7p83UVQOz2ieAnXm51pDfHE65M=; b=NT4FL0hF4bSlhQH4YCYP5FdnAfa8KFB4Rru9MgvlFITAvn/DSsGdAo4QJro+Vltpm+ 8+EhB0YLFyt9DBOQfDvXdRWdmYKb7fLSww5jibJUYIPbu+S8QfJEPoNIkr81Sqfbucrb 3vNOT9HLtR7PirO3l9J2g8S8jeG5v+5sKNXtqv1qPfOwbyGK0Nz2N6xtGrl54zcfcQF8 ksBwLLOhXQEzgmK88VR3ZBlYzZE/gJgXe4mIYY6YVz97f+C8tsIMEI0w/8CZZYkoTjhM EQvSxIpj2myqgdqsP2i6Bx/YbFobf1EgOfOFJ/NhekFUOkTjeVB6WvdMqpu3kgqsrQ7y Emuw== X-Received: by 10.15.34.199 with SMTP id e47mr25682514eev.35.1365757511145; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.61.160.148] (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bk42sm10069737eeb.3.2013.04.12.02.05.09 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:05:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Giles Heron Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Draft minutes for L2VPN Orlando posted Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:05:13 +0100 Message-Id: <57C191A3-9461-4DCF-BAF3-BCACDDE3D210@gmail.com> To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: Andrew McLachlan , Benson Schliesser 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, 12 Apr 2013 09:05:13 -0000 The draft minutes from Orlando have now been posted: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-l2vpn Thanks to Andrew and Benson for taking notes. please do read and send comments to the chairs if you find any = mistakes/issues. Nabil & Giles= From richard.boldy@twcable.com Fri Apr 12 08:14:49 2013 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 5A5F421F8700 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:14:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.138 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.138 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6] 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 4WuaEyOJL55U for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE3C21F86FA for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:14:47 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.14 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,462,1363147200"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="56320551" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.14]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 12 Apr 2013 11:14:45 -0400 Received: from PRVPEXVS14.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.49]) by PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.14]) with mapi; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:14:47 -0400 From: "Boldy, Richard" To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:14:39 -0400 Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac43kHgItVHX9SugTu614dtKdhuocg== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <83FEE822-F3F2-47BF-A34F-C1AB6B71635C@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_CD8D9B198D650richardboldytwcablecom_"; type="multipart/alternative" 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, 12 Apr 2013 15:14:49 -0000 --_004_CD8D9B198D650richardboldytwcablecom_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD8D9B198D650richardboldytwcablecom_" --_000_CD8D9B198D650richardboldytwcablecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Folks, Just to follow up on Giles email below. I'd like to get a simple yes/no res= ponse on if you think this is a real world problem that needs a solution. We are particularly interest in service provider comments but I'd like to g= et a simple straw-poll on adoption by the WG here asap. Outside of the WG I've received a great deal of interest in this and my pro= posed solution so I'd like to re-start discussion on the solution draft of = this preferably within the WG if possible. Rgds Rich./ Rich Boldy Principal Engineer National Network Operations Engineering Advanced Technology Group CCNP JNCIS-SP MEF-CECP [cid:17564400-F75F-444C-BB81-85E383882B3A] 13820 Sunrise Valley Dr | Herndon, VA 20171 Office: (703) 713 1573 Mobile: (512) 673-2719 Email: richard.boldy@twcable.com AIM:rboldytwc From: Giles Heron > To: Richard Boldy > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00= .txt Thanks Rich WG - please take a moment to review the draft and to give feedback. I'd be particularly interested in feedback from SPs as to whether they see = this as a requirement for their VPLS networks. Giles On 21 Mar 2013, at 15:13, "Boldy, Richard" > wrote: Hi, At the request of one of our Chairs (Giles) the REQ draft below replaces my= original draft - "draft-l2vpn-vlpm' as a requirements draft for this solut= ion. Once reviewed and chewed I'll be submitting my proposed solution draft (as = per my original ID) but I welcome any others. Let's put the solution discussion on the shelf for now till we get a good p= eer review on this REQ. Kind regards Rich./ Rich Boldy Principal Engineer National Network Operations Engineering Advanced Technology Group CCNP MEF-CECP 13820 Sunrise Valley Dr | Herndon, VA 20171 Office: (703) 713 1573 Mobile: (512) 673-2719 Email: richard.boldy@twcable.com AIM:rboldytwc From: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" > To: Richard Boldy > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Time Warner Cable and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req Revision: 00 Title: VPLS External Loop Detection and Protection Requirements Creation date: 2013-03-21 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 6 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boldy-l2vpn-vpls= loop-req-00.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop= -req Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-= 00 Abstract: Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) implementations, as defined in [RFC4761] and [RFC4762], are highly susceptible to layer-2 loops external to the PE customer-facing interface. Such loops impact performance and can have a detrimental affect on all VPLS traffic throughout the entire instance under certain conditions. Current Layer-2 loop detection and protection mechanisms do not function effectively here. This document describes the requirements for a protocol function to offer VPLS service providers a mechanism for detecting such layer-2 loops and facilitating configurable actions without the need for inter-operation with customer network protocols, other VPLS PEs or customer sourced frames. The IETF Secretariat 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. --_000_CD8D9B198D650richardboldytwcablecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Folks,

Just to follow up on Giles email below. I'd like to ge= t a simple yes/no response on if you think this is a real world= problem that needs a solution. 

We are parti= cularly interest in service provider comments but I'd like to get a simple = straw-poll on adoption by the WG here asap.

Outsid= e of the WG I've received a great deal of interest in this and my proposed = solution so I'd like to re-start discussion on the solution draft of this p= referably within the WG if possible.

Rgds
Rich./



<= div>
<= div>
Ric= h Boldy

P= rincipal Engineer

=
National Network Operations Engineering
Advanced Technology G= roup
CCNP JNCIS-SP MEF-CECP
=

 <= /span>

=

<= br>

13820 Sunrise Valley Dr | Herndon, VA 20171
Of= fice: (7= 03) 713 1573

Mobile: (512) 673-2719

Email: richard.boldy@twcable.com

AIM:rboldytwc
=

<= /div>




From: Giles Heron <giles.heron@gmail.com>
To: Richard Boldy <richard.boldy@twcable.com>
Cc: = "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-boldy-l2= vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt

Thanks Rich<= /div>

WG - please take a moment to review the draft and = to give feedback.

I'd be particularly interested i= n feedback from SPs as to whether they see this as a requirement for their = VPLS networks.

Giles

On 2= 1 Mar 2013, at 15:13, "Boldy, Richard" <richard.boldy@twcable.com> wrote:

<= blockquote id=3D"MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: = #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
Hi,
At the request of one of our Chairs (Giles) the REQ draft below re= places my original draft - "draft-l2vpn-vlpm' as a requirements draft for t= his solution.
Once reviewed and chewed I'll be submi= tting my proposed solution draft (as per my original ID) but I welcome any = others.
Let's put the solution discussion on the sh= elf for now till we get a good peer review on this REQ.
Kind regards
Rich./
Rich Boldy
Principal Engineer
National Network= Operations Engineering
Advanced Technology Group
CCN= P MEF-CECP
  
<CE42269E-D6FE-4EE1-B6FF-B0= 91393A5BF3[1].png>
13820 Sunrise Valley Dr | Hern= don, VA 20171
Office: (703) 713 1573
Mobile:
(512) 673-2719
Email:
AIM:rboldytwc
To: Richard Boldy <richard.boldy@twcable.com>
Subject: New Version N= otification for draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-boldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Time Warner Cable and posted t= o the
IETF repository.
Filename: draft-bo= ldy-l2vpn-vplsloop-req
Revision: 00
Title: VPLS Exter= nal Loop Detection and Protection Requirements
Creation date: 20= 13-03-21
Group: Individual Submission
Number of pages= : 6
Abstract:
  &= nbsp;  Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) implementations, as defined = in
     [RFC4761] and [RFC4762], are highly s= usceptible to layer-2 loops
     external to = the PE customer-facing interface. Such loops impact
  &= nbsp;  performance and can have a detrimental affect on all VPLS traff= ic
     throughout the entire instance under = certain conditions.
     Current = Layer-2 loop detection and protection mechanisms do not
 &nb= sp;   function effectively here.
 &nbs= p;   This document describes the requirements for a protocol func= tion
     to offer VPLS service providers a m= echanism for detecting such
     layer-2 loop= s and facilitating configurable actions without the
  &= nbsp;  need for inter-operation with customer network protocols, other=
     VPLS PEs or customer sourced frames.
         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;          
=
The IETF Secretariat
<= div>
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Wa= rner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or s= ubject 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. I= f you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notifie= d that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relatio= n 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 noti= fy the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy = of this E-mail and any printout.


=
--_000_CD8D9B198D650richardboldytwcablecom_-- --_004_CD8D9B198D650richardboldytwcablecom_ Content-Type: image/png; name="CE42269E-D6FE-4EE1-B6FF-B091393A5BF3[2].png" Content-Description: CE42269E-D6FE-4EE1-B6FF-B091393A5BF3[2].png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="CE42269E-D6FE-4EE1-B6FF-B091393A5BF3[2].png"; size=4548; creation-date="Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:14:46 GMT"; modification-date="Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:14:46 GMT" Content-ID: <17564400-F75F-444C-BB81-85E383882B3A> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAJYAAAASCAYAAAC5ICcsAAAC0WlDQ1BJQ0MgUHJvZmlsZQAAKJGN lM9LFGEYx7+zjRgoQWBme4ihQ0ioTBZlROWuv9i0bVl/lBLE7Oy7u5Ozs9PM7JoiEV46ZtE9Kg8e +gM8eOiUl8LALALpblFEgpeS7Xlnxt0R7ccLM/N5nx/f53nf4X2BGlkxTT0kAXnDsZJ9Uen66JhU +xEhHEEdwqhTVNuMJBIDoMFjsWtsvofAvyute/v/OurStpoHhP1A6Eea2Sqw7xfZC1lqBBC5XsOE YzrE9zhbnv0x55TH8659KNlFvEh8QDUtHv+auEPNKWmgRiRuyQZiUgHO60XV7+cgPfXMGB6k73Hq 6S6ze3wWZtJKdz9xG/HnNOvu4ZrE8xmtN0bcTM9axuod9lg4oTmxIY9DI4YeH/C5yUjFr/qaoulE k9v6dmmwZ9t+S7mcIA4TJ8cL/TymkXI7p3JD1zwW9KlcV9znd1Yxyeseo5g5U3f/F/UWeoVR6GDQ YNDbgIQk+hBFK0xYKCBDHo0iNLIyN8YitjG+Z6SORIAl8q9TzrqbcxtFyuZZI4jGMdNSUZDkD/JX eVV+Ks/JX2bDxeaqZ8a6qanLD76TLq+8ret7/Z48fZXqRsirI0vWfGVNdqDTQHcZYzZcVeI12P34 ZmCVLFCpFSlXadytVHJ9Nr0jgWp/2j2KXZpebKrWWhUXbqzUL03v2KvCrlWxyqp2zqtxwXwmHhVP ijGxQzwHSbwkdooXxW6anRcHKhnDpKJhwlWyoVCWgUnymjv+mRcL76y5o6GPGczSVImf/4RVyGg6 CxzRf7j/c/B7xaOxIvDCBg6frto2ku4dIjQuV23OFeDCN7oP3lZtzXQeDj0BFs6oRavkSwvCG4pm dxw+6SqYk5aWzTlSuyyflSJ0JTEpZqhtLZKi65LrsiWL2cwqsXQb7Mypdk+lnnal5lO5vEHnr/YR sPWwXP75rFzeek49rAEv9d/AvP1FThgxSQAADq5JREFUaIHtmXl0VVWWxn/33jflDcnLPL8QkkBC gCTIkIAMMtgOCNKFqChII1CWU5W21VZZre3UDm05LVtR2wLECQe0REpBARGNQCBACBACCWR+ISHz S/LGe/qPFx4Zwapl9epezbdWVlb2mb5z93f22WdHEkJwCZfwc0PT83tQdbl9ndR3HKGp6yQubysG TSiR5nSizZloZMOgEzY4jlHWtANZEkgoyJIGVXhRURFCkBw2FbMuhgbHEZLDpiNL2r/X3lCFh8La ddiseUSbRwfsjY5Sypu3MT5hBRpZH7Afsr9HlCmDuOBxfzdOPwe8qpPTzbs41bwTj9qFLSSXlPCZ mHRRFx3b2l3J8cbNjE+4fUgfljdtp9vTzOiYG/5WipJmMGu7s5b8ypc5dubPCLwE6+MwaELo9rbS 7qxDoxgZG3MTebY7MerC+4y1dxSxr3oNGkXC6WnF3nGKCFMcFn0MXlVFrxhp6ipjW9kz/Mv040SY Rv6t5C+Kbk8rXxy7izExN3LD2HcC9u9OP0V+xXoijGmkRlwJgMN1ho3F/8S05Af/Vwurtm0/G4+s 4mzncaIto1AkLQXVb6JXLKya9B2RpvQLjj9xdgufFN+NzZo35D73Vr9Gdete0qPm9Tl4fw0GCKvI /gFfHn+QaHM680b9J8mhU0GS8KluFFmPKjycPPs1u06/QGHtOuZmPM+oqOsD47NibyYr9mYAypu2 sXrPHGalPMqExJWBPs1dp0i05hEaNBwAIQSSJAXaPaoTba/TJISKT3WjUQY7YQKPrwutYhrQYtSG ExecQ1XrbryqC42sx+PrpLIlH0mC8ubtAWHVOw7j9nkYFjq1z7pe1Yki65D7n0EhoIezKnzIkoJA RUIOdPGqzh7HSPSHV3UiIaPIun7TqkiS3DOvt8+6rd1VrD+wAK1i4I7cfOKCcwA421nKvpo1KP2i v0ftRkbps4bU8yOE2sPDhSJpkCQl0EeWNEgSCNR+nF2AGDTSubwd6BRTgHufr/VDxfNsL3uS6zJe Ylz8bdS0FfBR8TLqOw7iUz0osp4k6xRmpT3Cr3J/YE/Va3x8eDkzhpcyffiDAxYTgRu2701b3bqb w/UbSA2fjc/n5t0D8xkdsxCXt4PD9g9xeBpJsuYyPfn3FJ/5mOMNm+n2tJEaMZO56S+h1wQDUFD9 Bvtr1uJRHWhlMxMTVzA+4XbOOVKSZJLDrmBn+XM0d50iypxBveMIDncDscHJlDdtC4iiouV7TFoL 8SHjcbjq2V72OJWt+Xh8DmRJT3rUtcxKfQSdYmF/zVuUNGxiYuIqdpQ/Q7A+kkVj3+ODokWkhf8D WsVAYe07tDkrsegTuGbksySFXg6AveMQ28ueoKnrBCBhC8llTtrjmPUxVLTs4usTD3FFyr+yp+p1 2l3VLLtsKyZdBAB7q16luauGX+XtCIgKIMI0kqtHPtvj4Ha+O/U0J85uxeVtB2SSw6YxJ+0JLPrY HuFAdVsB31c8R3XrPrSKiUm2VeQm3hUQRu/D0NpdybayR6lrPwAIIk2jmJ32KJGmdHzCQ1Hde7Q5 q9FrgsmOuwWjNuL88TpY+zbbyx5lybhPGRd/G7tOP8uafddg0cewaOx7rJq0i4Vj1uJVXbz64yQq W/LJtd3J0sv+zK7T/0F+xfMDhDUUGjqPUdKwGae3zR9BWn9gS+kfaOg8Sm7SXaRHXk1h7Ue8c2A+ na4zTB12P6nhM8ivWMvJs1sB2HnqKTYd+zXjE5ZzU9YGMqMX8EnxSg7VvdtnreSw6XhUldr2fYA/ f7AabExK/CV17cW0dlcAUNG8i9jgbIzaMOo6DlLVWsDkpHuZn/k6GVFz+ebkH9lb9bqfv+MoRfYv 2FzyG2IsmWTFLkYVXmrb9rPlxEOUNn5JTtxipgy7j5q2/ewofwyARkcJbxXMRkJi4Zh1zE1/kZNN 3/Dh4cUI4aOlu4LSs/lsLF6OTjExIWEFOsXsP5rCR1nTN0SZbdiseUN+25buCo43fsW4+NuYn7ma iYkr2VP1J7adfCQgGBXYXfUKsZYcrhr5DKFBiXxy+F4O13/QZy4ZhU73Wdbsv4pGRynzM19jQeab tHRXsL7wOpzeNtq6K+l0N1LTVoDL205tWyHQE7EaHSVsKrmb6zPfYHjYFRyu38C35U+xdNwmksOm U1izhj1Vb5ASPo0bs95l28l/49Mjy7lrciHJodO4JecT3i68hlhLDsPDZ15UWLKkQZYUzgVmIQRj 437B9ZlvApAafiUF1W+SE7+EOWlPAhAXchkFNW/j8nXg9Laxs/wp8pLuYGLiKgCizaM5dmYje6tX kx13K+dOXKwlB7POSEXL9+TELaXs7NfYrLlkRM3ny9LfUdW2G4s+DnvHISYn/QaAERFXMyLi6gDf lLBZ7K99i7r2g37XSApaReKWnM+IsYwB/JFCCB+Z0dexaOz7gbHF9g20u+wA/FD5AqCyaOx6tIoR gDlpj/HBods423UCjaxHAuZmvDwgcXb7unC4z2DRx6JcIO+JsYzl3imHAn+nhs+hyP4+9o7zNiFg XsarpPT4akTEVdS1j6SwZg1ZsbcEYpUi6zhYt47GzuP8dloZYcYUAOZmvMgr+ZM51bSdlPBZeFUX 8SET8KrdmPXRQI+wOt2N5NnuISt2MV7VxbflTzAn7XGSw6azueRejjVsJjP6eraU/p6mzpPMTH2E A3VrqW7dQ0r4bByuerSKEb02eMgNXxgCpde9rQoPEhI6OShg86keJECRdDR1leH0dnK6eSfvHJgX yG3Odp3Goo9EVX3Isv+WN+ujA3lWh8uOveMQExJXEmEcQVhQAuVN24k0ptPlaWN42IyetdwU2T+g tPErfKoTncaMy+vslQcKFEka8HARCHQ9gjkPCRkZVXixtx9EFSobim7q4SzR4aoHoMvdHMjPTPqB rztF1qDIeryqG39qMTBvO8fiWMMmjtZ/itPbSpA2hDZnHWHG5F6M6MNTrwkmxjKGlu7TvXpICATV rQXIkpYvSu7puSYl3N4OANpddeg1IeTEL6W5swyTLopoi//1rQEYFjaNYWHTAGjuKqPb3cyYmBtx eTsorv+IxdkbSQqdQlrEHA7bNyBLWoK0Vryqk6NnPuWzo79k4Zh1xAePH2KzPwUDKx5i8CoIQvhQ BSSFTmV42AzO1eLGx68gJCgBWT6fiEpIJIfN4IeKP1Jc/yGq8GKz5iFJMsNCp1HVkk+IPgGTLoxY SxYAW048yO7K1cxMeYho8ygc7kaO1H82gOK5BPincAaBT3iw6KMYF78sMFaSFK5UTMQHj+PomYoh 59XIQUSa0jnVvAuHqx6LPm7QVXZXvsKmkvu5fNg9ZETNxaM6KWvaQX/y/XlKkow0QKwCVXjQa4xk xy1BkbUg/H2nJv+OhJDLALAabFgNtr58+xNzetvQKHoMGgsgoZENtDmrgCmBK6Kq9UfanXYO1K6n oiWfhWPWkhn9j0N80J8XqvASFpSMXqMDoZIZ/YtBevX9aMmh09lZ/u98f/oFosyZWA1JAKSFX0mR fQMFNX/CZs3FoA3Fqzoprv+QUdFzmZnqz0uEUNlW9vAFRHNhCASypCXKPIrSxq2khs9Br7EM0m+g oHojJ24pRfav2Fu1mtlpT/Rpq2jZhdWQRHH9x8QFZ3Jt+ouBth8rXkIIX5/+vcsIbl8nde1F2KwT A0xAICETa8mhuP5z4oPH/VWloQHCMuui8ficdLjqCTOmcHnyA3x+7F7aXfXYrJOwdxTxzYmHcbib cHrbWT5ha5/iY2/4ywT+53hvqMKLT/UFNuBTPajCe34cAp+q9rP55/Kqboy6SCbb7mbn6RcwaK2k hM/G5e1gb9UbRJpTuTb95T7rxQZnE6QLw95RTVbsjYGntS00D1mSaXTYmZZ8PwCKpCXCNJLypl2U NX2DURvBwdp1tHQ3BRzv56/2E5rAp7r7cAbwCQ8+4QFgStL9HKn/gnWF1zI1+Z8xaEI41bSD441f sGLCt/7+6uARC2B0zEKmJG3l65NP0tJdQUb0fBBwvHEz+6rfZtn4z4kNzmJ35ZsU139MpGkkJQ2b qGkvIjEkp4e7D68K35Y/Sa7tLhRJS37ly7Q7G8i13dPD2YtP9fMel7CMgpq3eOfAAmalPkywIYHa tkL21bzForHrh6yFDRCWNSiJYEMcx858xuXJD5BnuxujNow9laspqHodRdaRET2f7NibSQmfPeik 52DRx5IUOpYI04g+9nBjGrbQiWgVE7KkkBQ6JZAEAxiUYGzWCYT3GmfWRZEUmoPVkAjAlSOexmKI o7B2PYfq3keWNESbx5Adu2QAD5Mukpy4JZQ2bmdM7I0Be2hQCtmxt1LTfoj0yHmA/2qal/Eqfzn+ AJ8duQOjLpyMyLlkxy0gyjQK8D8UkkLzMGjO55SKrCchZCIx5qw+ayeGTMTtcwCChJAJrJiwhW/L n2Zzya+RJRmjNpIJiSvRaSxYg4YxLDSL4CGuOVnSsGD0f2GzTqawdi1/KbkPSZIIDUphcfa7pEfO JT5kPJ3uJraUPohBayU1fBYTE5Yj8AX8mxE9jUjTSL4q/S3dnlaMukiWjPuQ1B5/RpkzUVUvEhJW g43bJ2xl28nH2HriD/78TBPMmJgbBvi1N6Se/KRPjC+yv8/mknu4M28/oUHnkz6PrxuNrOtTTLsY VOEZ9N82vYt/QvgGzHmuvjT4mPPJqxAqbl8niqy7aJXYJ9wokm6AvX8h8hzcXgeKrOspMIqemmjf oujFOAsECNGrPuSHx9fVk+z3LewOxWUwuH2dSEiBF2b/NhklUFT2c/Mn3+ceO6rw4fF1o9eYB3AW Qh2wF6/qRFW96DQmhn48ACANKiwhVD45soya1v0svexzwo1pP2mjl3AJPRhcWAA+1cXnx+6kpOFL pibfR3bsrQQbBg/Rl3AJ/TC0sM7hyJmN7Dr1HB2uWkKChjM6+jouH/bA/xzFS/i/iIsLyw+Bvb2I U83fodcYGZ+w8sLdL+H/OwLCuoRL+Fnx31jyHIjV3M1tAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC --_004_CD8D9B198D650richardboldytwcablecom_-- From nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com Mon Apr 15 10:39:13 2013 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 461BE21F9641 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:39:13 -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 ERWC8BGbBrap for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fldsmtpe02.verizon.com (fldsmtpe02.verizon.com [140.108.26.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B5F21F9635 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:39:12 -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; 15 Apr 2013 17:39:11 +0000 From: "Bitar, Nabil N" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,476,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="454510266" Received: from fldp1lumxc7hb05.verizon.com (HELO FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.75.87]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2013 17:39:09 +0000 Received: from fldp1lumxc7v63.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.3.50]) by FLDP1LUMXC7HB05.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.75.87]) with mapi; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:39:53 -0400 To: John E Drake , Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:36:58 -0400 Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Topic: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Index: Ac46ADxpfdWmQbT2RfS/xZ1qAsZV7w== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D48BB73@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 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, 15 Apr 2013 17:39:13 -0000 Hi, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft that has not been properly disclosed. Thanks, Nbail On 4/8/13 9:02 AM, "John E Drake" wrote: >Giles, > >I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft. > >Irrespectively Yours, > >John > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Giles Heron >> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 5:46 AM >> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf- >> l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in order to >> ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules >> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >>=20 >> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond >> to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has >> not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a >> response has been received from each author and contributor. >>=20 >> If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author >> or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of >> any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >> The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn- >> evpn-req-02. >>=20 >> This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. >>=20 >> Thanks. >>=20 >> Nabil & Giles From ju1738@att.com Mon Apr 15 10:41:33 2013 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 9692921F9666 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:41:33 -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 NIcjn7xKCaRc for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com [209.65.160.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E65CB21F9647 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:41:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) with ESMTP id ccb3c615.488dd940.200738.00-563.564026.nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:41:32 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 516c3bcc0a59f07f-68701520b275439b8405e4f7ed8ef8d1abe1a5a8 Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id bcb3c615.0.200732.00-300.564004.nbfkord-smmo08.seg.att.com (envelope-from ); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:41:32 +0000 (UTC) X-MXL-Hash: 516c3bcc13cfd49e-e4e344425c8dd14b08d1afa4a85f149846af6a08 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3FHfVw9015275; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:41:31 -0400 Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.239]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3FHfMon015096 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:41:25 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9C.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9c.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.82]) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:41:02 +0100 Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9I.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.56]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9C.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:41:02 -0400 From: "UTTARO, JAMES" To: "'Bitar, Nabil N'" , John E Drake , Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Topic: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Index: Ac46ADxpfdWmQbT2RfS/xZ1qAsZV7wAABVkg Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:41:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D48BB73@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.199.115] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.146] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=OvD4PVDt c=1 sm=0 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qBFB/a8mmA==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=FJCxfJlXBEwA:10 a=G1o2dbpGdbIA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32R] X-AnalysisOut: [AAAA:8 a=ttB-Yxsi-i8A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=OUXY8nFuAAAA:8] X-AnalysisOut: [ a=0VAQprIaClfAB8zBs6sA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA] X-AnalysisOut: [:10 a=peF9eE_zjQwA:10 a=BpIUJQkg1qCLuRje:21 a=6MunsU452zbY] X-AnalysisOut: [re8Z:21] 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, 15 Apr 2013 17:41:33 -0000 I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft that has not been properly = disclosed.. Thanks, Jim Uttaro -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= itar, Nabil N Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:37 PM To: John E Drake; Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Hi, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft that has not been properly disclosed. Thanks, Nbail On 4/8/13 9:02 AM, "John E Drake" wrote: >Giles, > >I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft. > >Irrespectively Yours, > >John > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Giles Heron >> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 5:46 AM >> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf- >> l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in order to >> ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules >> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >>=20 >> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond >> to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has >> not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a >> response has been received from each author and contributor. >>=20 >> If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author >> or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of >> any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >> The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn- >> evpn-req-02. >>=20 >> This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. >>=20 >> Thanks. >>=20 >> Nabil & Giles From giles.heron@gmail.com Mon Apr 15 10:57:15 2013 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 41D5321F90B9 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:57:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 J3RPV6BNrkAa for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x229.google.com (mail-ea0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44ADC21F8FC0 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:57:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f169.google.com with SMTP id n15so2294714ead.14 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:57:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=ntq/J10/L9zg3cQXLJ3H/akqKKSXTbtVtF3H6NlIzEw=; b=JyXzS8o+iJRako8FzA91bKkqBSuw5ywQuUiLTateNdpota6rSfZ5h6hjRQCEvLVcTM Txbu2luBKCNB/xZVmjYGJXQhMoBxQigh4eGXtFls2OfCCDOW9UzT4QCdLT8GteaSTB6E LMEXZlX/by7yUdIXYP9CgAG+OoWCOXlmehgrJK6rvJ2HAlwqXZUbmvjp7+SvbQAn1bNV /TcmyP70Zf91eH6Dt/B5WrG0yUXQts/d9kjRUWpZRIXbliEzknm47aAyj/xAeMX9g9lI G2U87ZM+OuPyRqlpFKx1ehTxljp8UuFowRHNSrX8xhbsdPyIz0EUG1QFmSviOlHNexGH 55rQ== X-Received: by 10.14.219.130 with SMTP id m2mr9443220eep.32.1366048621375; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp5167.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bk42sm28099395eeb.3.2013.04.15.10.56.59 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req From: Giles Heron In-Reply-To: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:56:55 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) 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, 15 Apr 2013 17:57:15 -0000 Thanks Ali, WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. Given that the = IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now responded, we plan to = move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless we get = substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and rev02 by = the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). thanks. Giles On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) = wrote: >=20 > Folks,=20 >=20 > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments haven = been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for = better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and thus = suggesting following the text with some explicit requirements. As the = result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, 4.6, = and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you have any = questions.=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Ali >=20 > From: Cisco Employee > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, Nabil N" = > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >=20 >=20 > Giles, Nabil: >=20 > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to ensure that = all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been resolved. I = have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. >=20 > Cheers, > Ali=20 >=20 >=20 > =95 To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong = > =95 Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > =95 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > =95 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 > =20 > Giles, Nabil: >=20 > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been resolved. = I > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. >=20 > Regards, > Ali >=20 > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >=20 > >Thanks Lucy, > > > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's comments. > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > > > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the draft = further. > > > >thanks. > > > >Giles > > > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong wrote: > > > >> I support this draft but have some comments. > >>=20 > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means that = requiring > >>a dedicated > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi-homing > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. > >>=20 > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is in IGP = link > >>too? or private link. > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be different ASes? = If > >>yes, state it out. > >>=20 > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a requirement = for > >>flow based load balance. > >>=20 > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet L2VPN = across > >>multi-ASes > >>=20 > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are required = for > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these service > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use cases where = the > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. > >>=20 > >> Cheers, > >> Lucy > >>=20 > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 > >>> From: Giles Heron > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at gmail.com> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii > >>>=20 > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > >>>=20 > >>>=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >=20 > >>>=20 > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft for > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. > >>>=20 > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > >>>=20 > >>> Nabil & Giles > >>=20 > > >=20 >=20 From ssalam@cisco.com Mon Apr 15 11:44:54 2013 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 251E921F96A0 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:44:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 zZGdGKRS9gUm for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:44:53 -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 384EE21F9625 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:44:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1143; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1366051493; x=1367261093; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=YvO5ax2gJk+My7eYI8r3e2HzeIWGbEpHViCMCAHTYBg=; b=ja3XRsac2EgBu0EO93BLyDBnW5+j0ie22+3Or/S35WY46poFKwITlo6P Q0fDeWkzYEzmFthHBLRhjPngnll4hcB6ZkNatACre13fzGcHnmb1yM7aH JQfSwluFrEuUdO4tSpx9aJWN44gJA2mTFpbgcd9dr7ruIuqZ4lEK3oG9N o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlcFAJBJbFGtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABQgmUhNsEEgQcWdIIhAQQ6UQEIIhQxESUCBAESCId6Aw8BC7F4DYlZBIxEgRGBETiCYGEDkziBao1YhRyDC4FzNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,477,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="199007052" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2013 18:44:52 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3FIiqD1005091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:44:52 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:44:52 -0500 From: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" To: Giles Heron , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Topic: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 Thread-Index: AQHOMfu6Wz9+4pnua0+EMaBnohLHIZjXjR0A Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:44:52 +0000 Message-ID: <8F25FF8EA49D164EBE5F1B5AD33F3BC91239FE05@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5E2D53D0-9C00-44A7-A67F-DCE287045531@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616 x-originating-ip: [161.44.210.96] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: 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, 15 Apr 2013 18:44:54 -0000 I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft that has not been already disclosed. Regards, Samer On 13-04-05 5:46 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >Hi, > >We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to >draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in >order to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR >rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >=20 >If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to >this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has not >been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a >response has been received from each author and contributor. >=20 >If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author or >contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any >IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. The >draft can be found at >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02. >=20 >This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. > >Thanks. > >Nabil & Giles From cfilsfil@cisco.com Tue Apr 16 02:10:23 2013 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 0465621F968D for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:10:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 xQebvgW5M4+Y for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E506821F968C for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:10:21 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from stew-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3G9AKFR004819 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:10:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.55.57.3] (ams-cfilsfil-8912.cisco.com [10.55.57.3]) by stew-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3G9AJXe016537 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:10:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <516D157A.7010807@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:10:18 +0200 From: Clarence Filsfils User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Fwd: Fwd: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 References: In-Reply-To: X-Forwarded-Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:17:01 -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: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:10:23 -0000 I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft that hasn't already been disclosed. Cheers, Clarence > > On 4/15/13 10:41 AM, "UTTARO, JAMES" wrote: > >> I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft that has not been >> properly disclosed.. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Jim Uttaro >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Bitar, Nabil N >> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:37 PM >> To: John E Drake; Giles Heron; l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 >> >> Hi, >> I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft that has not been properly >> disclosed. >> >> Thanks, >> Nbail >> >> On 4/8/13 9:02 AM, "John E Drake" wrote: >> >>> Giles, >>> >>> I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft. >>> >>> Irrespectively Yours, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >>>> Of Giles Heron >>>> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 5:46 AM >>>> To: l2vpn@ietf.org >>>> Subject: IPR poll for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-02 >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> We are polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf- >>>> l2vpn-evpn-req-02, "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (E-VPN)", in order to >>>> ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules >>>> (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >>>> >>>> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond >>>> to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR that has >>>> not been properly disclosed. The draft will not be progressed until a >>>> response has been received from each author and contributor. >>>> >>>> If you are on the L2VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author >>>> or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of >>>> any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >>>> The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn- >>>> evpn-req-02. >>>> >>>> This poll closes on Friday April 12, 2013. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Nabil & Giles >> > From lucy.yong@huawei.com Wed Apr 17 03:30:08 2013 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 BEECD21F890D for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:30:08 -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 dvgscqo0YHAf for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13BD721F88DB for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARX69891; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:30:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:29:49 +0100 Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:29:58 +0100 Received: from DFWEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.11.204]) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.102]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:29:54 -0700 From: Lucy yong To: Giles Heron , Ali Sajassi Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHOOgLYGMHLIu0tgkWNZog/1EFAWpjaLglw Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:29:53 +0000 Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.200.217.103] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected 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, 17 Apr 2013 10:30:08 -0000 Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be revised. 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the reference section= too. 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be included.=20 3) replace contributers with contributors One comment: There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support multi-tenancy, = in which additional requirements are necessary. We can either include the r= equirements in this document or will have another document to address those= requirements. The additional requirements in my minds are 1) Support VM mo= bility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) EVPNs interworking for multi-subne= ts 4) traffic optimization over infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide = where to include these req. prior to progressing the draft? Cheers, Lucy > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Giles Heron > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM > To: Ali Sajassi > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >=20 > Thanks Ali, >=20 > WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. Given that > the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now responded, we > plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless we get > substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and rev02 by > the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). >=20 > thanks. >=20 > Giles >=20 > On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > wrote: >=20 > > > > Folks, > > > > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments haven > been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for > better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and thus > suggesting following the text with some explicit requirements. As the > result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, 4.6, > and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you have any > questions. > > > > Thanks, > > Ali > > > > From: Cisco Employee > > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM > > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, Nabil N" > > > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to ensure > that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been resolved. > I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. > > > > Cheers, > > Ali > > > > > > * To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong > > > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been resolved. > I > > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. > > > > Regards, > > Ali > > > > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" wrote: > > > > >Thanks Lucy, > > > > > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's comments. > > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > > > > > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the draft > further. > > > > > >thanks. > > > > > >Giles > > > > > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong wrote: > > > > > >> I support this draft but have some comments. > > >> > > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means that > requiring > > >>a dedicated > > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi-homing > > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. > > >> > > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is in IGP > link > > >>too? or private link. > > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be different ASes? > If > > >>yes, state it out. > > >> > > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a requirement > for > > >>flow based load balance. > > >> > > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet L2VPN > across > > >>multi-ASes > > >> > > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are required > for > > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these service > > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use cases where > the > > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Lucy > > >> > > >>> ------------------------------ > > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 > > >>> From: Giles Heron > > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" > > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at gmail.com> > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii > > >>> > > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > > >>> > > >>> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > > > >>> > > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft > for > > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. > > >>> > > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > > >>> > > >>> Nabil & Giles > > >> > > > > > > > From jdrake@juniper.net Wed Apr 17 04:13:40 2013 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 E763521F8AB0 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:13:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] 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 wW-fH2zm7Tlw for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og125.obsmtp.com (exprod7og125.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2B621F8AA6 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob125.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUW6D4yH0X4SzNeEkIPS96vrvXztrX7u1@postini.com; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:13:39 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:10:55 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:10:54 -0700 Received: from DB8EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (213.199.154.189) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:14:08 -0700 Received: from mail147-db8-R.bigfish.com (10.174.8.240) by DB8EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (10.174.4.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:10:52 +0000 Received: from mail147-db8 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail147-db8-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B23600CE for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:10:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -26 X-BigFish: PS-26(zzbb2dI98dI9371I542I1432I4015Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1155h) Received: from mail147-db8 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail147-db8 (MessageSwitch) id 1366197051420459_11898; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB8EHSMHS011.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.8.239]) by mail147-db8.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F5524004F; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by DB8EHSMHS011.bigfish.com (10.174.4.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:10:51 +0000 Received: from BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.181]) by BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.100.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0293.003; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:10:37 +0000 From: John E Drake To: Lucy yong , Giles Heron , Ali Sajassi Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHONWjPjH7gSqv8iEKqvjstwS14npjXmmmAgAKnxICAAArisA== Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:10:37 +0000 Message-ID: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5309@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%HUAWEI.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%GMAIL.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%CISCO.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.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: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:13:41 -0000 Lucy, I think the NVO3 group should document DC requirements. As I recall, that = is what it was chartered to do. Irrespectively Yours, John > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Lucy yong > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:30 AM > To: Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >=20 > Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be revised. >=20 > 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the reference > section too. > 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be included. > 3) replace contributers with contributors >=20 > One comment: > There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support multi- > tenancy, in which additional requirements are necessary. We can either > include the requirements in this document or will have another document > to address those requirements. The additional requirements in my minds > are 1) Support VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) EVPNs > interworking for multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over > infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide where to include these req. > prior to progressing the draft? >=20 > Cheers, > Lucy >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > > Of Giles Heron > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM > > To: Ali Sajassi > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > Thanks Ali, > > > > WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. Given that > > the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now responded, we > > plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless we get > > substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and rev02 > > by the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). > > > > thanks. > > > > Giles > > > > On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments haven > > been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for > > better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and thus > > suggesting following the text with some explicit requirements. As the > > result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, > 4.6, > > and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you have any > > questions. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ali > > > > > > From: Cisco Employee > > > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM > > > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, Nabil N" > > > > > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to ensure > > that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been > resolved. > > I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > * To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong > > > > > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > > > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been > resolved. > > I > > > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Ali > > > > > > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" wrote: > > > > > > >Thanks Lucy, > > > > > > > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's > comments. > > > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > > > > > > > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the draft > > further. > > > > > > > >thanks. > > > > > > > >Giles > > > > > > > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong > wrote: > > > > > > > >> I support this draft but have some comments. > > > >> > > > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means that > > requiring > > > >>a dedicated > > > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi-homing > > > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. > > > >> > > > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is in IGP > > link > > > >>too? or private link. > > > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be different > ASes? > > If > > > >>yes, state it out. > > > >> > > > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a requirement > > for > > > >>flow based load balance. > > > >> > > > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet L2VPN > > across > > > >>multi-ASes > > > >> > > > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are > > > >> required > > for > > > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these service > > > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use cases > > > >>where > > the > > > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Lucy > > > >> > > > >>> ------------------------------ > > > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 > > > >>> From: Giles Heron > > > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" > > > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at gmail.com> > > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii > > > >>> > > > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > > > > > >>> > > > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft > > for > > > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. > > > >>> > > > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > > > >>> > > > >>> Nabil & Giles > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >=20 From lucy.yong@huawei.com Wed Apr 17 05:28:33 2013 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 EB89C21F8C8C for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:28:33 -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 8ouGbooXo1Q7 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1826721F8C30 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AQL74681; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:28:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:28:19 +0100 Received: from DFWEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.134) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:28:29 +0800 Received: from DFWEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.11.204]) by dfweml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.134]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:28:22 -0700 From: Lucy yong To: John E Drake , Giles Heron , Ali Sajassi Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHOOgLYGMHLIu0tgkWNZog/1EFAWpjaLglwgACLqoD//5wV4A== Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:28:21 +0000 Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254951@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5309@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5309@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.200.216.252] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected 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, 17 Apr 2013 12:28:34 -0000 Hi John, This is no doubt that nvo3 requirements doc. need to cover this application= . =20 If this document is about the EVPN requirements, and if the EVPN is also in= tended to apply to inside DC, do you think that the additional requirements= related to this application should be EVPN requirements? To avoid the dupl= ication, maybe we simply reference the nvo3 requirement in this document. T= hus, in the introduction section of this document, it should mention intra-= DC application at least and related requirement reference.=20 Thanks, Lucy =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:11 AM > To: Lucy yong; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >=20 > Lucy, >=20 > I think the NVO3 group should document DC requirements. As I recall, > that is what it was chartered to do. >=20 > Irrespectively Yours, >=20 > John >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > > Of Lucy yong > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:30 AM > > To: Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be revised. > > > > 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the reference > > section too. > > 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be included. > > 3) replace contributers with contributors > > > > One comment: > > There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support multi- > > tenancy, in which additional requirements are necessary. We can > either > > include the requirements in this document or will have another > document > > to address those requirements. The additional requirements in my > minds > > are 1) Support VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) EVPNs > > interworking for multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over > > infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide where to include these req. > > prior to progressing the draft? > > > > Cheers, > > Lucy > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf > > > Of Giles Heron > > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM > > > To: Ali Sajassi > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > Thanks Ali, > > > > > > WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. Given > that > > > the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now responded, > we > > > plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless we > get > > > substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and > rev02 > > > by the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > Giles > > > > > > On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments > haven > > > been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for > > > better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and thus > > > suggesting following the text with some explicit requirements. As > the > > > result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, > > 4.6, > > > and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you have any > > > questions. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > From: Cisco Employee > > > > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM > > > > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, Nabil N" > > > > > > > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to ensure > > > that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been > > resolved. > > > I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > * To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong > > > > > > > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > > > > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been > > resolved. > > > I > > > > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" > wrote: > > > > > > > > >Thanks Lucy, > > > > > > > > > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's > > comments. > > > > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > > > > > > > > > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the draft > > > further. > > > > > > > > > >thanks. > > > > > > > > > >Giles > > > > > > > > > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I support this draft but have some comments. > > > > >> > > > > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means that > > > requiring > > > > >>a dedicated > > > > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi-homing > > > > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. > > > > >> > > > > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is in > IGP > > > link > > > > >>too? or private link. > > > > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be different > > ASes? > > > If > > > > >>yes, state it out. > > > > >> > > > > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a > requirement > > > for > > > > >>flow based load balance. > > > > >> > > > > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet L2VPN > > > across > > > > >>multi-ASes > > > > >> > > > > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are > > > > >> required > > > for > > > > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these > service > > > > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use cases > > > > >>where > > > the > > > > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. > > > > >> > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > >> Lucy > > > > >> > > > > >>> ------------------------------ > > > > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 > > > > >>> From: Giles Heron > > > > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" > > > > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at > gmail.com> > > > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii > > > > >>> > > > > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this > draft > > > for > > > > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Nabil & Giles > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 From jdrake@juniper.net Wed Apr 17 05:36:48 2013 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 C81DF21E804C for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:36:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] 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 7Sn-puBSoySs for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og118.obsmtp.com (exprod7og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A9B21E804B for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:36:47 -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 ID DSNKUW6XX/juhxdQcKOHzrOCK75zZntD4X+i@postini.com; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:36:47 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:34:12 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:34:12 -0700 Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (65.55.88.15) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:37:26 -0700 Received: from mail173-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.247) by TX2EHSOBE013.bigfish.com (10.9.40.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:34:12 +0000 Received: from mail173-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail173-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D709F1E00FD for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:34:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -26 X-BigFish: PS-26(zzbb2dI98dI9371I542I1432I4015Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1155h) Received: from mail173-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail173-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1366202049330631_23322; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.234]) by mail173-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7FA801E4; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by TX2EHSMHS013.bigfish.com (10.9.99.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:34:06 +0000 Received: from BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.181]) by BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.100.38]) with mapi id 14.16.0293.003; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:34:05 +0000 From: John E Drake To: Lucy yong , Giles Heron , Ali Sajassi Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHONWjPjH7gSqv8iEKqvjstwS14npjXmmmAgAKnxICAAArisIAAFjeAgAAAgjA= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:34:04 +0000 Message-ID: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A55F8@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5309@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254951@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254951@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%HUAWEI.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%GMAIL.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%CISCO.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.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: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:36:48 -0000 Lucy, The E-VPN Requirements draft details the requirements which E-VPN was desig= ned address. The fact that it may address additional requirements is irrel= evant to this discussion. It is also the case that raising the issue of ad= ditional requirements at this point in the process looks like obstructionis= m. Irrespectively Yours, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:28 AM > To: John E Drake; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >=20 > Hi John, >=20 > This is no doubt that nvo3 requirements doc. need to cover this > application. >=20 > If this document is about the EVPN requirements, and if the EVPN is > also intended to apply to inside DC, do you think that the additional > requirements related to this application should be EVPN requirements? > To avoid the duplication, maybe we simply reference the nvo3 > requirement in this document. Thus, in the introduction section of this > document, it should mention intra-DC application at least and related > requirement reference. >=20 > Thanks, > Lucy >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:11 AM > > To: Lucy yong; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > Lucy, > > > > I think the NVO3 group should document DC requirements. As I recall, > > that is what it was chartered to do. > > > > Irrespectively Yours, > > > > John > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf > > > Of Lucy yong > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:30 AM > > > To: Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be > revised. > > > > > > 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the reference > > > section too. > > > 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be included. > > > 3) replace contributers with contributors > > > > > > One comment: > > > There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support multi- > > > tenancy, in which additional requirements are necessary. We can > > either > > > include the requirements in this document or will have another > > document > > > to address those requirements. The additional requirements in my > > minds > > > are 1) Support VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) EVPNs > > > interworking for multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over > > > infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide where to include these > req. > > > prior to progressing the draft? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Lucy > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > Behalf > > > > Of Giles Heron > > > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM > > > > To: Ali Sajassi > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > Thanks Ali, > > > > > > > > WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. Given > > that > > > > the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now responded, > > we > > > > plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless we > > get > > > > substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and > > rev02 > > > > by the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). > > > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > > > Giles > > > > > > > > On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments > > haven > > > > been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask > > > > for better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and > > > > thus suggesting following the text with some explicit > > > > requirements. As > > the > > > > result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, > > > 4.6, > > > > and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you have > any > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > From: Cisco Employee > > > > > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM > > > > > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, Nabil > N" > > > > > > > > > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > > > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to > > > > > ensure > > > > that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been > > > resolved. > > > > I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong > > > > > > > > > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > > > > > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > > > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been > > > resolved. > > > > I > > > > > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks Lucy, > > > > > > > > > > > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's > > > comments. > > > > > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > > > > > > > > > > > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the > draft > > > > further. > > > > > > > > > > > >thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > >Giles > > > > > > > > > > > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> I support this draft but have some comments. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means > that > > > > requiring > > > > > >>a dedicated > > > > > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi- > homing > > > > > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is in > > IGP > > > > link > > > > > >>too? or private link. > > > > > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be different > > > ASes? > > > > If > > > > > >>yes, state it out. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a > > requirement > > > > for > > > > > >>flow based load balance. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet > L2VPN > > > > across > > > > > >>multi-ASes > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are > > > > > >> required > > > > for > > > > > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these > > service > > > > > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use cases > > > > > >>where > > > > the > > > > > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > > >> Lucy > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> ------------------------------ > > > > > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 > > > > > >>> From: Giles Heron > > > > > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" > > > > > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at > > gmail.com> > > > > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this > > draft > > > > for > > > > > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Nabil & Giles > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 From lucy.yong@huawei.com Wed Apr 17 06:12:22 2013 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 63B8A21E804B for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:12:22 -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 mZxYb0ie4spM for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8301721E803D for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARX83719; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:12:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:12:06 +0100 Received: from DFWEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:12:16 +0100 Received: from DFWEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.11.204]) by dfweml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:12:13 -0700 From: Lucy yong To: John E Drake , Giles Heron , Ali Sajassi Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHOOgLYGMHLIu0tgkWNZog/1EFAWpjaLglwgACLqoD//5wV4IAAezwA//+L6/A= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:12:12 +0000 Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D452549D1@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5309@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254951@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A55F8@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A55F8@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.200.216.252] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected 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, 17 Apr 2013 13:12:22 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:34 AM > To: Lucy yong; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >=20 > Lucy, >=20 > The E-VPN Requirements draft details the requirements which E-VPN was > designed address.=20 [Lucy] Yes, E-VPN was originally aimed for SP network service. But now ther= e is also intention to apply it inside DC.=20 =20 The fact that it may address additional requirements > is irrelevant to this discussion. It is also the case that raising the > issue of additional requirements at this point in the process looks > like obstructionism. [Lucy] Although the intention of this thread is not for this subject, IMO: = raising the question here is valid because it related to the evpn. I guess = that you prefer to catch the additional requirements for intra-DC applicati= on in different doc, which is one of options mentioned in my early e-mail. = If this is the way that the WG want do, we should state clearly in this doc= ument: the evpn for inside DC is outside scope of this document. IMO: this = is the issue the WG faces. The WG needs to address it. We have an option wi= thout process delay.=20 Regards, Lucy >=20 > Irrespectively Yours, >=20 > John >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:28 AM > > To: John E Drake; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > Hi John, > > > > This is no doubt that nvo3 requirements doc. need to cover this > > application. > > > > If this document is about the EVPN requirements, and if the EVPN is > > also intended to apply to inside DC, do you think that the additional > > requirements related to this application should be EVPN requirements? > > To avoid the duplication, maybe we simply reference the nvo3 > > requirement in this document. Thus, in the introduction section of > this > > document, it should mention intra-DC application at least and related > > requirement reference. > > > > Thanks, > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:11 AM > > > To: Lucy yong; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > Lucy, > > > > > > I think the NVO3 group should document DC requirements. As I > recall, > > > that is what it was chartered to do. > > > > > > Irrespectively Yours, > > > > > > John > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > Behalf > > > > Of Lucy yong > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:30 AM > > > > To: Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be > > revised. > > > > > > > > 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the > reference > > > > section too. > > > > 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be included. > > > > 3) replace contributers with contributors > > > > > > > > One comment: > > > > There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support > multi- > > > > tenancy, in which additional requirements are necessary. We can > > > either > > > > include the requirements in this document or will have another > > > document > > > > to address those requirements. The additional requirements in my > > > minds > > > > are 1) Support VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) > EVPNs > > > > interworking for multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over > > > > infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide where to include these > > req. > > > > prior to progressing the draft? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > Behalf > > > > > Of Giles Heron > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM > > > > > To: Ali Sajassi > > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ali, > > > > > > > > > > WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. Given > > > that > > > > > the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now > responded, > > > we > > > > > plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless > we > > > get > > > > > substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and > > > rev02 > > > > > by the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). > > > > > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Giles > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments > > > haven > > > > > been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask > > > > > for better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and > > > > > thus suggesting following the text with some explicit > > > > > requirements. As > > > the > > > > > result, a few additional requirements were added to sections > 4.3, > > > > 4.6, > > > > > and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you have > > any > > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Cisco Employee > > > > > > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM > > > > > > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, > Nabil > > N" > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > > > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > > > > > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to > > > > > > ensure > > > > > that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been > > > > resolved. > > > > > I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong > > > > > > > > > > > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > > > > > > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > > > > > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been > > > > resolved. > > > > > I > > > > > > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the > draft. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks Lucy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's > > > > comments. > > > > > > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the > > draft > > > > > further. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Giles > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I support this draft but have some comments. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means > > that > > > > > requiring > > > > > > >>a dedicated > > > > > > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi- > > homing > > > > > > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is > in > > > IGP > > > > > link > > > > > > >>too? or private link. > > > > > > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be > different > > > > ASes? > > > > > If > > > > > > >>yes, state it out. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a > > > requirement > > > > > for > > > > > > >>flow based load balance. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet > > L2VPN > > > > > across > > > > > > >>multi-ASes > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are > > > > > > >> required > > > > > for > > > > > > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these > > > service > > > > > > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use > cases > > > > > > >>where > > > > > the > > > > > > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > > > >> Lucy > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------ > > > > > > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 > > > > > > >>> From: Giles Heron > > > > > > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" > > > > > > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at > > > gmail.com> > > > > > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this > > > draft > > > > > for > > > > > > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Nabil & Giles > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 From jdrake@juniper.net Wed Apr 17 06:45:21 2013 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 557EE21F86D3 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:45:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] 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 QDYTbjKjlEUK for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og118.obsmtp.com (exprod7og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8813421F86F2 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:45:13 -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 ID DSNKUW6nZCS4y6NJUnGK+MFROsxloPlVf9SN@postini.com; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:45:13 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:41:39 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:41:38 -0700 Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.181.185) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:44:53 -0700 Received: from mail215-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.228) by CH1EHSOBE013.bigfish.com (10.43.70.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:41:38 +0000 Received: from mail215-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail215-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310DF2A0148 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:41:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -27 X-BigFish: PS-27(zzbb2dI98dI9371I542I1432I4015I11fbIzz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1155h) Received: from mail215-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail215-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1366206095746924_14204; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (snatpool2.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.239]) by mail215-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B443D4E0047; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:41:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by CH1EHSMHS018.bigfish.com (10.43.70.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:41:35 +0000 Received: from BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.181]) by BL2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.100.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0293.003; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:41:32 +0000 From: John E Drake To: Lucy yong , Giles Heron , Ali Sajassi Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHONWjPjH7gSqv8iEKqvjstwS14npjXmmmAgAKnxICAAArisIAAFjeAgAAAgjCAAAu+AIAAAxSg Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:41:30 +0000 Message-ID: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5767@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5309@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254951@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A55F8@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D452549D1@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D452549D1@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%HUAWEI.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%GMAIL.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%CISCO.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.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: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:45:22 -0000 Irrespectively Yours, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:12 AM > To: John E Drake; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:34 AM > > To: Lucy yong; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > Lucy, > > > > The E-VPN Requirements draft details the requirements which E-VPN was > > designed address. > [Lucy] Yes, E-VPN was originally aimed for SP network service. But now > there is also intention to apply it inside DC. JD: And what is your point? >=20 >=20 > The fact that it may address additional requirements > > is irrelevant to this discussion. It is also the case that raising > > the issue of additional requirements at this point in the process > > looks like obstructionism. > [Lucy] Although the intention of this thread is not for this subject, JD: In that case, perhaps we should have an extended discussion of the mov= ies that will be opening this weekend. > IMO: raising the question here is valid because it related to the evpn. JD: To what is 'it' referring and what does 'the evpn' mean? > I guess that you prefer to catch the additional requirements for intra- > DC application in different doc, which is one of options mentioned in > my early e-mail. If this is the way that the WG want do, we should > state clearly in this document: the evpn for inside DC is outside scope > of this document. JD: So, you want to enumerate all of things that are out of scope for this= document? Are you aware that this enumerated list is potentially infinite= in length and that it will constantly change? > IMO: this is the issue the WG faces. The WG needs to > address it. We have an option without process delay. JD: Since the NVO3 WG is chartered to develop DC requirements and to perfo= rm a gap analysis of potential solutions against these requirements, there = is no need for the E-VPN Requirements draft to mention DC requirements. =20 >=20 > Regards, > Lucy > > > > Irrespectively Yours, > > > > John > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:28 AM > > > To: John E Drake; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > This is no doubt that nvo3 requirements doc. need to cover this > > > application. > > > > > > If this document is about the EVPN requirements, and if the EVPN is > > > also intended to apply to inside DC, do you think that the > > > additional requirements related to this application should be EVPN > requirements? > > > To avoid the duplication, maybe we simply reference the nvo3 > > > requirement in this document. Thus, in the introduction section of > > this > > > document, it should mention intra-DC application at least and > > > related requirement reference. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:11 AM > > > > To: Lucy yong; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > Lucy, > > > > > > > > I think the NVO3 group should document DC requirements. As I > > recall, > > > > that is what it was chartered to do. > > > > > > > > Irrespectively Yours, > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On > > > > Behalf > > > > > Of Lucy yong > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:30 AM > > > > > To: Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be > > > revised. > > > > > > > > > > 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the > > reference > > > > > section too. > > > > > 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be > included. > > > > > 3) replace contributers with contributors > > > > > > > > > > One comment: > > > > > There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support > > multi- > > > > > tenancy, in which additional requirements are necessary. We can > > > > either > > > > > include the requirements in this document or will have another > > > > document > > > > > to address those requirements. The additional requirements in > my > > > > minds > > > > > are 1) Support VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) > > EVPNs > > > > > interworking for multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over > > > > > infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide where to include > > > > > these > > > req. > > > > > prior to progressing the draft? > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] > > > > > > On > > > > > Behalf > > > > > > Of Giles Heron > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM > > > > > > To: Ali Sajassi > > > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ali, > > > > > > > > > > > > WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. > > > > > > Given > > > > that > > > > > > the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now > > responded, > > > > we > > > > > > plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC > unless > > we > > > > get > > > > > > substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 > and > > > > rev02 > > > > > > by the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC > > > > > > > comments > > > > haven > > > > > > been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments > > > > > > ask for better clarify in the text for some of the > > > > > > requirements and thus suggesting following the text with some > > > > > > explicit requirements. As > > > > the > > > > > > result, a few additional requirements were added to sections > > 4.3, > > > > > 4.6, > > > > > > and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you > have > > > any > > > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Cisco Employee > > > > > > > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM > > > > > > > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, > > Nabil > > > N" > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > > > > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to > > > > > > > ensure > > > > > > that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been > > > > > resolved. > > > > > > I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * To: Giles Heron , Lucy > yong > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn- > evpn-req > > > > > > > * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" cisco.com> > > > > > > > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been > > > > > resolved. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the > > draft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks Lucy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's > > > > > comments. > > > > > > > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the > > > draft > > > > > > further. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Giles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong > > > > > > >huawei.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I support this draft but have some comments. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means > > > that > > > > > > requiring > > > > > > > >>a dedicated > > > > > > > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi- > > > homing > > > > > > > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is > > in > > > > IGP > > > > > > link > > > > > > > >>too? or private link. > > > > > > > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be > > different > > > > > ASes? > > > > > > If > > > > > > > >>yes, state it out. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a > > > > requirement > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >>flow based load balance. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet > > > L2VPN > > > > > > across > > > > > > > >>multi-ASes > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces > are > > > > > > > >> required > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these > > > > service > > > > > > > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use > > cases > > > > > > > >>where > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > > > > >> Lucy > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------ > > > > > > > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 > > > > > > > >>> From: Giles Heron > > > > > > > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" > > > > > > > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at > > > > gmail.com> > > > > > > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of > this > > > > draft > > > > > > for > > > > > > > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Nabil & Giles > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 From lucy.yong@huawei.com Wed Apr 17 07:12:53 2013 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 D83E521F85F3 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:12:53 -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 2+FM-A7Z8EXu for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE6721F8432 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARX88810; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:12:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:12:38 +0100 Received: from DFWEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:12:47 +0800 Received: from DFWEML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.11.204]) by dfweml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:12:44 -0700 From: Lucy yong To: John E Drake , Giles Heron , Ali Sajassi Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHOOgLYGMHLIu0tgkWNZog/1EFAWpjaLglwgACLqoD//5wV4IAAezwA//+L6/CAAIbsAP//jO8w Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:12:43 +0000 Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254A33@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5309@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254951@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A55F8@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D452549D1@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5767@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5767@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.200.216.252] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected 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, 17 Apr 2013 14:12:54 -0000 See in-line. > > > The E-VPN Requirements draft details the requirements which E-VPN > was > > > designed address. > > [Lucy] Yes, E-VPN was originally aimed for SP network service. But > now > > there is also intention to apply it inside DC. >=20 > JD: And what is your point? [Lucy] my point is that if the evpn requirements should include intra DC ap= plication because the desire. >=20 > > > > > > The fact that it may address additional requirements > > > is irrelevant to this discussion. It is also the case that raising > > > the issue of additional requirements at this point in the process > > > looks like obstructionism. > > [Lucy] Although the intention of this thread is not for this subject, >=20 > JD: In that case, perhaps we should have an extended discussion of the > movies that will be opening this weekend. [Lucy] that is definitely irrelevant to this discussion. You are working on= the several evpn solution drafts for intra-DCs in this WG. Do you say that= should not relevant to the EVPN requirements at all?=20 >=20 > > IMO: raising the question here is valid because it related to the > evpn. >=20 > JD: To what is 'it' referring and what does 'the evpn' mean? [Lucy] "it" refers to my question about additional requirements for the evp= n to apply in DC. >=20 > > I guess that you prefer to catch the additional requirements for > intra- > > DC application in different doc, which is one of options mentioned in > > my early e-mail. If this is the way that the WG want do, we should > > state clearly in this document: the evpn for inside DC is outside > scope > > of this document. >=20 > JD: So, you want to enumerate all of things that are out of scope for > this document? Are you aware that this enumerated list is potentially > infinite in length and that it will constantly change? [Lucy] No, this is not my intention. I just mention the solution we already= work on, not anything not foreseeable yet. >=20 > > IMO: this is the issue the WG faces. The WG needs to > > address it. We have an option without process delay. >=20 > JD: Since the NVO3 WG is chartered to develop DC requirements and to > perform a gap analysis of potential solutions against these > requirements, there is no need for the E-VPN Requirements draft to > mention DC requirements. [Lucy] but the evpn-overlay for DC is already started in this WG! It causes= people confusion who did work the evpn requirement at beginning.=20 Lucy >=20 > > > > Regards, > > Lucy > > > > > > Irrespectively Yours, > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:28 AM > > > > To: John E Drake; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > > > This is no doubt that nvo3 requirements doc. need to cover this > > > > application. > > > > > > > > If this document is about the EVPN requirements, and if the EVPN > is > > > > also intended to apply to inside DC, do you think that the > > > > additional requirements related to this application should be > EVPN > > requirements? > > > > To avoid the duplication, maybe we simply reference the nvo3 > > > > requirement in this document. Thus, in the introduction section > of > > > this > > > > document, it should mention intra-DC application at least and > > > > related requirement reference. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:11 AM > > > > > To: Lucy yong; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > Lucy, > > > > > > > > > > I think the NVO3 group should document DC requirements. As I > > > recall, > > > > > that is what it was chartered to do. > > > > > > > > > > Irrespectively Yours, > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] > On > > > > > Behalf > > > > > > Of Lucy yong > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:30 AM > > > > > > To: Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi > > > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > > > Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be > > > > revised. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the > > > reference > > > > > > section too. > > > > > > 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be > > included. > > > > > > 3) replace contributers with contributors > > > > > > > > > > > > One comment: > > > > > > There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support > > > multi- > > > > > > tenancy, in which additional requirements are necessary. We > can > > > > > either > > > > > > include the requirements in this document or will have > another > > > > > document > > > > > > to address those requirements. The additional requirements in > > my > > > > > minds > > > > > > are 1) Support VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) > > > EVPNs > > > > > > interworking for multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over > > > > > > infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide where to include > > > > > > these > > > > req. > > > > > > prior to progressing the draft? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Lucy > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] > > > > > > > On > > > > > > Behalf > > > > > > > Of Giles Heron > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM > > > > > > > To: Ali Sajassi > > > > > > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ali, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. > > > > > > > Given > > > > > that > > > > > > > the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now > > > responded, > > > > > we > > > > > > > plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC > > unless > > > we > > > > > get > > > > > > > substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 > > and > > > > > rev02 > > > > > > > by the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC > > > > > > > > comments > > > > > haven > > > > > > > been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments > > > > > > > ask for better clarify in the text for some of the > > > > > > > requirements and thus suggesting following the text with > some > > > > > > > explicit requirements. As > > > > > the > > > > > > > result, a few additional requirements were added to > sections > > > 4.3, > > > > > > 4.6, > > > > > > > and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you > > have > > > > any > > > > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Cisco Employee > > > > > > > > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM > > > > > > > > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, > > > Nabil > > > > N" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time > to > > > > > > > > ensure > > > > > > > that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have > been > > > > > > resolved. > > > > > > > I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * To: Giles Heron , Lucy > > yong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn- > > evpn-req > > > > > > > > * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > cisco.com> > > > > > > > > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think all the comments regarding this last call have > been > > > > > > resolved. > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the > > > draft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" > gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks Lucy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and > Lucy's > > > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress > the > > > > draft > > > > > > > further. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Giles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong > > > > > > > >huawei.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I support this draft but have some comments. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often > means > > > > that > > > > > > > requiring > > > > > > > > >>a dedicated > > > > > > > > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the > multi- > > > > homing > > > > > > > > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link > is > > > in > > > > > IGP > > > > > > > link > > > > > > > > >>too? or private link. > > > > > > > > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be > > > different > > > > > > ASes? > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > >>yes, state it out. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a > > > > > requirement > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >>flow based load balance. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting > Ethernet > > > > L2VPN > > > > > > > across > > > > > > > > >>multi-ASes > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces > > are > > > > > > > > >> required > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will > these > > > > > service > > > > > > > > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use > > > cases > > > > > > > > >>where > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > > > > > >> Lucy > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 > > > > > > > > >>> From: Giles Heron > > > > > > > > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at > > > > > gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of > > this > > > > > draft > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN > WG. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Nabil & Giles > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 From giles.heron@gmail.com Wed Apr 17 07:18:51 2013 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 32E0321F8B1E for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:18:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 tgPL5UQ8pH9i for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x234.google.com (mail-ea0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFE421F86D5 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f180.google.com with SMTP id d10so754084eaj.39 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:18:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=yPQwq/8QHkD93FwWG01U4gfhBbTkrM252elx+vW/AhU=; b=wdD1PLLCEvCA8sCtjGtK4QkVTd1WnMw/bb1gZrAewdMbJvjsG+Kq/JfCsSLl+mc0eq 3pbBIeuFLDXa5GzLX68KOPC+6i+nEqO9fg4sCqto/QPibfLSWoxrnN80uG7QOrdSYGsU 0WwjOmnYvRsMAmkyRT1twW/rbpQ8sRWxNP9fHBs7kn18RxDaIf0MyHsUqn/LoLqbgWxn WT+F/rewFBRqeRnfYd0cy4l3d8J+qGMgXDuW3RGov6S/m3XrO9jzfdG9baWyNmm5u5vD +5UKUDj6MZA9bZNHEiqI2NZ+LtnVMlCFvlxzUpHkB38zFOV/j8bbJ4RWKbilYhrf3Qfg 7aTQ== X-Received: by 10.15.111.202 with SMTP id cj50mr18741046eeb.6.1366208328767; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp5442.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 8sm9315089eeg.15.2013.04.17.07.18.46 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req From: Giles Heron In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:18:57 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> To: Lucy yong X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, Ali Sajassi 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, 17 Apr 2013 14:18:51 -0000 Hi Lucy, On 17 Apr 2013, at 11:29, Lucy yong wrote: > Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be revised. >=20 > 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the reference = section too. > 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be included.=20 > 3) replace contributers with contributors >=20 OK. I'm sure Ali can fix those. > One comment: > There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support = multi-tenancy, in which additional requirements are necessary. We can = either include the requirements in this document or will have another = document to address those requirements. The additional requirements in = my minds are 1) Support VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) = EVPNs interworking for multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over = infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide where to include these req. = prior to progressing the draft? As John has noted I'm not sure that we need to document that in L2VPN. =46rom the NVO3 charter: "the NVO3 WG will develop requirements for both control plane = protocol(s) and data plane encapsulation format(s), and perform a gap = analysis of existing candidate mechanisms." So let's get E-VPN finished within its original scope so that NVO3 can = then consider it as a potential candidate mechanism for an NVO3 control = plane protocol... Giles > Cheers, > Lucy >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf >> Of Giles Heron >> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM >> To: Ali Sajassi >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>=20 >> Thanks Ali, >>=20 >> WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. Given that >> the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now responded, we >> plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless we get >> substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and rev02 = by >> the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). >>=20 >> thanks. >>=20 >> Giles >>=20 >> On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >> wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Folks, >>>=20 >>> As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments haven >> been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for >> better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and thus >> suggesting following the text with some explicit requirements. As the >> result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, = 4.6, >> and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you have any >> questions. >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>> Ali >>>=20 >>> From: Cisco Employee >>> Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM >>> To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, Nabil N" >> >>> Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" >>> Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Giles, Nabil: >>>=20 >>> Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to ensure >> that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been = resolved. >> I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. >>>=20 >>> Cheers, >>> Ali >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> * To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong >> >>> * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>> * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" >>> * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 >>>=20 >>> Giles, Nabil: >>>=20 >>> I think all the comments regarding this last call have been = resolved. >> I >>> have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Ali >>>=20 >>> On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Thanks Lucy, >>>>=20 >>>> authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's comments. >>>> Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? >>>>=20 >>>> Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the draft >> further. >>>>=20 >>>> thanks. >>>>=20 >>>> Giles >>>>=20 >>>> On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> I support this draft but have some comments. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means that >> requiring >>>>> a dedicated >>>>> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi-homing >>>>> mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is in IGP >> link >>>>> too? or private link. >>>>> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be different ASes? >> If >>>>> yes, state it out. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a requirement >> for >>>>> flow based load balance. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet L2VPN >> across >>>>> multi-ASes >>>>>=20 >>>>> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are required >> for >>>>> DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these service >>>>> interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use cases = where >> the >>>>> new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Lucy >>>>>=20 >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 >>>>>> From: Giles Heron >>>>>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" >>>>>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>>>>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at gmail.com> >>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft >> for >>>>>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Nabil & Giles >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >=20 From giles.heron@gmail.com Wed Apr 17 07:29:05 2013 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 5790021F8A11 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:29:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] 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 w-0i7bGs5yUs for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ea0-x22b.google.com (mail-ea0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E105121F8A0C for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f171.google.com with SMTP id b15so755977eae.30 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:29:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=c0l5ikQytE8UQmYoAcbHdj9pBe2ypwyILFP+XSRGXjY=; b=QCzA91t+exOG7LNpciVwu6xQTl4BDEGegP6wPgt8pxvXOGjUt/WIKziKK/TTS+Ajar rQPtH0OjV8LeHns4F3Xx8cT6L21IXXxUK6vpzf7WwUZ8co4FxF6E3REhWp6ZWKMZ5llg btaumjYykjahsOXDgg6Zx69QWe0hObryM87ahNRVqCY7Di8OMoMY1zK14V3Xyn+zMX4J QTceSzGMK3bugMfxFObyyqB2dg+qH0CreBs75wXBy7E0tGUzR+NgaeH+qNef/HT0r905 pXUswTG+isSQv3PwwBLfvnsEDiqIenc2NwOVfGx1JQ0Oiej50dcrnCxDeHHvEOi3hL4f eR1g== X-Received: by 10.15.21.1 with SMTP id c1mr18687511eeu.36.1366208942759; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp5442.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j44sm9401772eeu.10.2013.04.17.07.28.58 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req From: Giles Heron In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254A33@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:29:10 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5309@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254951@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A55F8@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D452549D1@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4A5767@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254A33@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> To: Lucy yong X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , Ali Sajassi 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, 17 Apr 2013 14:29:05 -0000 Hi Lucy, On 17 Apr 2013, at 15:12, Lucy yong wrote: [snip] >>=20 >>> IMO: this is the issue the WG faces. The WG needs to >>> address it. We have an option without process delay. >>=20 >> JD: Since the NVO3 WG is chartered to develop DC requirements and to >> perform a gap analysis of potential solutions against these >> requirements, there is no need for the E-VPN Requirements draft to >> mention DC requirements. > [Lucy] but the evpn-overlay for DC is already started in this WG! It = causes people confusion who did work the evpn requirement at beginning.=20= The evpn-overlay for DC is an individual draft. As I stated at IETF86 = it's not clear if it fits into our current charter. IIRC we also = discussed this at IETF85 - the issue is that NVO3 isn't doing solutions = yet, but people are already working (as individuals) on solutions. We = have allowed them to present those solutions in L2VPN but we're not = going to adopt them as WG docs any time soon. Giles > Lucy >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Lucy >>>>=20 >>>> Irrespectively Yours, >>>>=20 >>>> John >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:28 AM >>>>> To: John E Drake; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi >>>>> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hi John, >>>>>=20 >>>>> This is no doubt that nvo3 requirements doc. need to cover this >>>>> application. >>>>>=20 >>>>> If this document is about the EVPN requirements, and if the EVPN >> is >>>>> also intended to apply to inside DC, do you think that the >>>>> additional requirements related to this application should be >> EVPN >>> requirements? >>>>> To avoid the duplication, maybe we simply reference the nvo3 >>>>> requirement in this document. Thus, in the introduction section >> of >>>> this >>>>> document, it should mention intra-DC application at least and >>>>> related requirement reference. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Lucy >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:11 AM >>>>>> To: Lucy yong; Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi >>>>>> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Lucy, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I think the NVO3 group should document DC requirements. As I >>>> recall, >>>>>> that is what it was chartered to do. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Irrespectively Yours, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> John >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] >> On >>>>>> Behalf >>>>>>> Of Lucy yong >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:30 AM >>>>>>> To: Giles Heron; Ali Sajassi >>>>>>> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >>>>>>> Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be >>>>> revised. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the >>>> reference >>>>>>> section too. >>>>>>> 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be >>> included. >>>>>>> 3) replace contributers with contributors >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> One comment: >>>>>>> There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support >>>> multi- >>>>>>> tenancy, in which additional requirements are necessary. We >> can >>>>>> either >>>>>>> include the requirements in this document or will have >> another >>>>>> document >>>>>>> to address those requirements. The additional requirements in >>> my >>>>>> minds >>>>>>> are 1) Support VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) >>>> EVPNs >>>>>>> interworking for multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over >>>>>>> infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide where to include >>>>>>> these >>>>> req. >>>>>>> prior to progressing the draft? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Lucy >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] >>>>>>>> On >>>>>>> Behalf >>>>>>>> Of Giles Heron >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM >>>>>>>> To: Ali Sajassi >>>>>>>> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Thanks Ali, >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. >>>>>>>> Given >>>>>> that >>>>>>>> the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now >>>> responded, >>>>>> we >>>>>>>> plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC >>> unless >>>> we >>>>>> get >>>>>>>> substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 >>> and >>>>>> rev02 >>>>>>>> by the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> thanks. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Giles >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC >>>>>>>>> comments >>>>>> haven >>>>>>>> been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments >>>>>>>> ask for better clarify in the text for some of the >>>>>>>> requirements and thus suggesting following the text with >> some >>>>>>>> explicit requirements. As >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> result, a few additional requirements were added to >> sections >>>> 4.3, >>>>>>> 4.6, >>>>>>>> and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you >>> have >>>>> any >>>>>>>> questions. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Ali >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> From: Cisco Employee >>>>>>>>> Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM >>>>>>>>> To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, >>>> Nabil >>>>> N" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Giles, Nabil: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time >> to >>>>>>>>> ensure >>>>>>>> that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have >> been >>>>>>> resolved. >>>>>>>> I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Ali >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> * To: Giles Heron , Lucy >>> yong >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn- >>> evpn-req >>>>>>>>> * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" >> cisco.com> >>>>>>>>> * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Giles, Nabil: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> I think all the comments regarding this last call have >> been >>>>>>> resolved. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the >>>> draft. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Ali >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" >> gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Lucy, >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and >> Lucy's >>>>>>> comments. >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Once the comments have been addressed we can progress >> the >>>>> draft >>>>>>>> further. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> thanks. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Giles >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong >>>>>>>>> huawei.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> I support this draft but have some comments. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often >> means >>>>> that >>>>>>>> requiring >>>>>>>>>>> a dedicated >>>>>>>>>>> link between the PEs, for the operation of the >> multi- >>>>> homing >>>>>>>>>>> mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link >> is >>>> in >>>>>> IGP >>>>>>>> link >>>>>>>>>>> too? or private link. >>>>>>>>>>> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be >>>> different >>>>>>> ASes? >>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>>>> yes, state it out. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a >>>>>> requirement >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> flow based load balance. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting >> Ethernet >>>>> L2VPN >>>>>>>> across >>>>>>>>>>> multi-ASes >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces >>> are >>>>>>>>>>> required >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will >> these >>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>>> interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use >>>> cases >>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> Lucy >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Giles Heron >>>>>>>>>>>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at >>>>>> gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of >>> this >>>>>> draft >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN >> WG. >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. >>>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> Nabil & Giles >>>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 From aldrin.isaac@gmail.com Fri Apr 19 19:00:12 2013 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 3D03B21F875C for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:00:12 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-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 8X3bbrY4IULz for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7906E21F86FA for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id fd20so205812lab.25 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:00:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2DHN29rI0ZmUdLN6wx6nDMtElZUHvigNSiQfpbkrCcc=; b=EWcnM4BQy2VsAzXiR35j1cdaGBd3IqqapyVifJ4s3p0LK5RmQLWNr4hSHd08auGl2w n62yvGOEvt4W5ro5zd47napY3xIkvtf3NjjkHYbKJG3cvYxo1aqDjTOp8Fts674gpW/8 v14buvIvLbp1MV64IgdGYLAytCVxLKeEbIGZ0YV7Rc8dUcU4FcoXt7BQKmQhR78R1kyK KYE2fK4ZdFQYXpSAre9FnqM/YW9gii4CzizU07SOD5RZqbJBG6L6h9mEfEPpDhieAiP2 +Yrcn2OQXVtvVmRwgp2+hgpJlm7Kzw5tKgg+yGXoybDCh+BTlsz6GgYsbnhWnTtPxcxb I55w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.144.6 with SMTP id si6mr9174296lbb.85.1366423209354; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.27.105 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:00:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1232D543@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <10574D2E-B4E0-490B-93E5-3677887CADE8@gmail.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:00:09 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req From: Aldrin Isaac To: Lucy yong Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b34363a01ab1c04dac132e1 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , Ali Sajassi 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, 20 Apr 2013 02:00:12 -0000 --047d7b34363a01ab1c04dac132e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Lucy, DCVPN was definitely a key use case that was on our mind at the inception of EVPN. This is why so much of the requirements draft directly or indirectly supports a DCVPN application of EVPN. At the time the early drafts were published NVO3 did not exist and there was a great deal of interest in the SP community so L2VPN WG was the path that was the way forward. The requirements draft definitely covers Ethernet DCVPN, and IMO does not prevent a use case that for VM mobility and multi-subnet. These can be described in drafts that describe how EVPN can be combined with other thingsto support these use cases. That said, it's possible that we can change the one or two places that refer to the underlay network as an MPLS network. On Wednesday, April 17, 2013, Lucy yong wrote: > Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be revised. > > 1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the reference > section too. > 2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be included. > 3) replace contributers with contributors > > One comment: > There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support multi-tenancy, > in which additional requirements are necessary. We can either include the > requirements in this document or will have another document to address > those requirements. The additional requirements in my minds are 1) Support > VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) EVPNs interworking for > multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over infrastructure network, etc. Can > we decide where to include these req. prior to progressing the draft? > > Cheers, > Lucy > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto: > l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org ] On Behalf > > Of Giles Heron > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM > > To: Ali Sajassi > > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > Thanks Ali, > > > > WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. Given that > > the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now responded, we > > plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless we get > > substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and rev02 by > > the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). > > > > thanks. > > > > Giles > > > > On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments haven > > been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for > > better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and thus > > suggesting following the text with some explicit requirements. As the > > result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, 4.6, > > and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you have any > > questions. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ali > > > > > > From: Cisco Employee > > > > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM > > > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" >, > "Bitar, Nabil N" > > > > > > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org " > > > > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to ensure > > that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been resolved. > > I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > * To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong > > > > > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > > > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 > > > > > > Giles, Nabil: > > > > > > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been resolved. > > I > > > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Ali > > > > > > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" wrote: > > > > > > >Thanks Lucy, > > > > > > > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's comments. > > > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? > > > > > > > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the draft > > further. > > > > > > > >thanks. > > > > > > > >Giles > > > > > > > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong wrote: > > > > > > > >> I support this draft but have some comments. > > > >> > > > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means that > > requiring > > > >>a dedicated > > > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi-homing > > > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. > > > >> > > > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is in IGP > > link > > > >>too? or private link. > > > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be different ASes? > > If > > > >>yes, state it out. > > > >> > > > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a requirement > > for > > > >>flow based load balance. > > > >> > > > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet L2VPN > > across > > > >>multi-ASes > > > >> > > > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are required > > for > > > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these service > > > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use cases where > > the > > > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Lucy > > > >> > > > >>> ------------------------------ > > > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 > > > >>> From: Giles Heron > > > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" > > > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req > > > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at gmail.com> > > > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > >>> > > > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 > > > > > > >>> > > > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft > > for > > > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. > > > >>> > > > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > > > >>> > > > >>> Nabil & Giles > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --047d7b34363a01ab1c04dac132e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Lucy,

DCVPN was definitely a key use case that=A0was = on our mind at the inception of EVPN. =A0This is why so much of the require= ments draft directly or indirectly supports a=A0DCVPN application of EVPN. = =A0At the time the early drafts were published=A0NVO3 did not exist=A0and t= here was a great deal of interest in=A0the SP community so=A0L2VPN WG was t= he path that was the way forward.=A0

The requirements draft definitely covers Ethernet DCVPN= , and IMO does not prevent a use case that for=A0VM mobility and multi-subn= et. =A0These can be described in=A0drafts that describe how EVPN can be com= bined with other things to support these use cases. =A0That sa= id, it's possible that we can change the=A0one or two places that refer= to the underlay network=A0as an MPLS network.=A0


On Wednesday, April 17, 2013, Lucy= yong wrote:
Check the diff. = btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be revised.

1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the reference section= too.
2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be included.
3) replace contributers with contributors

One comment:
There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support multi-tenancy, = in which additional requirements are necessary. We can either include the r= equirements in this document or will have another document to address those= requirements. The additional requirements in my minds are 1) Support VM mo= bility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) EVPNs interworking for multi-subne= ts 4) traffic optimization over infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide = where to include these req. prior to progressing the draft?

Cheers,
Lucy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Giles Heron
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM
> To: Ali Sajassi
> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req
>
> Thanks Ali,
>
> WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. =A0Given that=
> the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now responded, we > plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless we get<= br> > substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and rev02 b= y
> the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th).
>
> thanks.
>
> Giles
>
> On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sa= jassi@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments hav= en
> been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for > better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and thus
> suggesting following the text with some explicit requirements. As the<= br> > result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, 4.6,=
> and 10. Please review the changes =A0and let me know if you have any > questions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ali
> >
> > From: Cisco Employee <sajassi@cisco.com&g= t;
> > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM
> > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" <gihero= n@cisco.com>, "Bitar, Nabil N"
> <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>
> > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <gmail.com>, Lucy yong
> <lucy.yong at huawe= i.com>
> > =A0 =A0 * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req=
> > =A0 =A0 * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi at = cisco.com>
> > =A0 =A0 * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000
> >
> > Giles, Nabil:
> >
> > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been resol= ved.
> I
> > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. > >
> > Regards,
> > Ali
> >
> > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" <giles.heron at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Thanks Lucy,
> > >
> > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy&#= 39;s comments.
> > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week?
> > >
> > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the dra= ft
> further.
> > >
> > >thanks.
> > >
> > >Giles
> > >
> > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong <lucy.yong at huawei.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I support this draft but have some comments.
> > >>
> > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means= that
> requiring
> > >>a dedicated
> > >> =A0 link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi= -homing
> > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint.
> > >>
> > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is= in IGP
> link
> > >>too? or private link.
> > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be differ= ent ASes?
> If
> > >>yes, state it out.
> > >>
> > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a req= uirement
> for
> > >>flow based load balance.
> > >>
> > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet = L2VPN
> across
> > >>multi-ASes
> > >>
> > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces ar= e required
> for
> > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these= service
> > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use c= ases where
> the
> > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Lucy
> > >>
> > >>> ------------------------------
> > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100
> > >>> From: Giles Heron <giles.heron at gmail.com>
> > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" <l2vpn at ietf.org>
> > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req<= br> > > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32= at gmail.com>
> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
> > >>>
> > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-0= 1
> >
> > >>>
> > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of = this draft
> for
> > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN = WG.
> > >>>
> > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. > > >>>
> > >>> Nabil & Giles
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >

--047d7b34363a01ab1c04dac132e1-- From sajassi@cisco.com Mon Apr 22 10:32:24 2013 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 D926421F854E for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 as8cFNNFNy-p for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC6721F8A0B for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:32:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6324; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1366651944; x=1367861544; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=/O1163dolxlned+9NNdbtlt9OJOEm30DpJFG+wUakWQ=; b=C043/uHmfGjDXLV4pFtWn2I1cc4YWlgZ1MvX0ECx7QxQCnxhklEPnyqd mOVVMZC8+XyjqEF4orsJnhL/X+XbA/Vxh0V1H4oaPGFBvkkJbdic2WI69 NZI0OYDRWI/lGuIszoZVFnsBY/jhfTabFTAb6ngpkvnSLYzh5d2RboEy3 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAD1zdVGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABPgmUhNsEBgQYWdIIfAQEBAwEODx0rCQYFDAYBCBEDAQEBAQoUCTkUCQgCBAENBQiHegMJBgELsncNiESMaIEKC4ERJgsHBoJgYQOYOI93gwyBczU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,528,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="198624780" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2013 17:32:23 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3MHWNGF004117 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:32:23 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:32:22 -0500 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: Lucy yong , Giles Heron Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHONWjPjH7gSqv8iEKqvjstwS14npjaLglwgAhEToA= Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:32:22 +0000 Message-ID: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B12355935@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45254880@dfweml509-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <570A99A08013B948845549E3E5B61656@emea.cisco.com> 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, 22 Apr 2013 17:32:25 -0000 Lucy, On 4/17/13 3:29 AM, "Lucy yong" wrote: >Check the diff. btw 01 and 02. Following new text need to be revised. > >1) [ENTROPY-LABEL] should be [RFC6790]. Correct it in the reference >section too. >2) the contributor's affiliation and address should be included. >3) replace contributers with contributors Sure, I'll incorporate them into the next rev. > >One comment: >There is a strong desire to apply EVPN inside DC to support >multi-tenancy, in which additional requirements are necessary. We can >either include the requirements in this document or will have another >document to address those requirements. The additional requirements in my >minds are 1) Support VM mobility 2) EVPN over IP infrastructure 3) EVPNs >interworking for multi-subnets 4) traffic optimization over >infrastructure network, etc. Can we decide where to include these req. >prior to progressing the draft? At this late stage in the process, we cannot introduce any extensive text and new requriements or else we will never be able to close the document. I have already incorporated your last batch of comments during the WG LC in November and this call is supposed to review those edits and ensuring we have captured the resolutions to those comments. This call is NOT intended to introduce yet another set of new requirements. We already have documents in NOV3 that captures DC specific requirements and no need to replicate them here. Cheers, Ali > >Cheers, >Lucy > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Giles Heron >> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:57 PM >> To: Ali Sajassi >> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >>=20 >> Thanks Ali, >>=20 >> WG - please do respond if you see any issues with rev02. Given that >> the IPR poll has closed, and that all authors have now responded, we >> plan to move ahead with publishing this draft as an RFC unless we get >> substantive comments relating to the changes between rev01 and rev02 by >> the end of this week (i.e. by Friday April 19th). >>=20 >> thanks. >>=20 >> Giles >>=20 >> On 9 Apr 2013, at 22:24, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >> wrote: >>=20 >> > >> > Folks, >> > >> > As I noted in my email below (Feb/24), all the WG LC comments haven >> been addressed in rev02 of this draft. Some of the comments ask for >> better clarify in the text for some of the requirements and thus >> suggesting following the text with some explicit requirements. As the >> result, a few additional requirements were added to sections 4.3, 4.6, >> and 10. Please review the changes and let me know if you have any >> questions. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Ali >> > >> > From: Cisco Employee >> > Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:10 PM >> > To: "Giles Heron (giheron)" , "Bitar, Nabil N" >> >> > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" >> > Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >> > >> > >> > Giles, Nabil: >> > >> > Today, I went over all the WG LC comments one more time to ensure >> that all the comments posted to the WG mailing list have been resolved. >> I have published rev02 with all the comment resolutions. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Ali >> > >> > >> > * To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong >> >> > * Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >> > * From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" >> > * Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:09:53 +0000 >> > >> > Giles, Nabil: >> > >> > I think all the comments regarding this last call have been resolved. >> I >> > have already incorporated them into the next rev. of the draft. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Ali >> > >> > On 11/4/12 1:02 PM, "Giles Heron" wrote: >> > >> > >Thanks Lucy, >> > > >> > >authors - I'd like to see you address Yuanlong and Lucy's comments. >> > >Perhaps you can discuss face-to-face this week? >> > > >> > >Once the comments have been addressed we can progress the draft >> further. >> > > >> > >thanks. >> > > >> > >Giles >> > > >> > >On 4 Nov 2012, at 19:40, Lucy yong wrote: >> > > >> > >> I support this draft but have some comments. >> > >> >> > >> 1) in section 4.3, Text: The latter scenario often means that >> requiring >> > >>a dedicated >> > >> link between the PEs, for the operation of the multi-homing >> > >>mechanism, is not appealing from cost standpoint. >> > >> >> > >> Comment: a dedicated link between PEs. will this link is in IGP >> link >> > >>too? or private link. >> > >> May PE nodes that are multi-homed to a same CE be different ASes? >> If >> > >>yes, state it out. >> > >> >> > >> 2) in section 4.6, the last paragraph should state a requirement >> for >> > >>flow based load balance. >> > >> >> > >> 3) It should add one requirement in supporting Ethernet L2VPN >> across >> > >>multi-ASes >> > >> >> > >> 4) As the draft mentioned, the new service interfaces are required >> for >> > >>DC interconnection. If DC uses NVo3 in future, will these service >> > >>interfaces are still necessary? Suggest giving some use cases where >> the >> > >>new service interfaces are necessary in an appendix. >> > >> >> > >> Cheers, >> > >> Lucy >> > >> >> > >>> ------------------------------ >> > >>> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:34:53 +0100 >> > >>> From: Giles Heron >> > >>> To: "l2vpn at ietf.org" >> > >>> Subject: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req >> > >>> Message-ID: <755C3ABB-ADE3-42EE-8BE1-FBBEDB84BC32 at gmail.com> >> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii >> > >>> >> > >>> This email initiates an L2VPN WG Last Call for: >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-01 >> > >> > >>> >> > >>> please comment to the list as to the suitability of this draft >> for >> > >>> publication as a Standards Track RFC from the L2VPN WG. >> > >>> >> > >>> this last call will close on Friday 2nd November. >> > >>> >> > >>> Nabil & Giles >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > > From sajassi@cisco.com Mon Apr 22 10:51:03 2013 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 37D0921E8053 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 G3nZvmzCURVx for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3739621E805A for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:51:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1077; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1366653062; x=1367862662; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=KdGiEpERgtturzlBaToUOBEqFjC9P2/f0OlEgdTULFE=; b=cd8lmqymmUn/tV6aluo/cyutEJoXEi7aiJiLeIMs/afs9Mdq3pgNXYOB BON1duv5dJ92Oz0rb/SmOL/ZG2rNNXC4blarI0IhIrBtRimra48jGOgu7 s5Quet01OpPWLfVzk9RDjzs7+aB04YrhEHwI92ai+n55otJq1q01bhYYt Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFAPF3dVGtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABPgmUhwTeBBhZ0giEBBB0dPxIBCCIUMRElAgQBDQUIE4dnAw8BswoNiESMaIImMQeCZmEDlTGNYIUegwyCKA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,528,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="201695078" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2013 17:51:01 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3MHp1IM012410 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:51:01 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:51:01 -0500 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: Giles Heron , Lucy yong Subject: Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req Thread-Index: AQHONWjPjH7gSqv8iEKqvjstwS14npjaLglwgABzV4CAABW4gIAAAZkAgAAKpwCAAAgwAIAACLmAgAAEmACAB56zgA== Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:51:01 +0000 Message-ID: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B12355967@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: 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, 22 Apr 2013 17:51:03 -0000 Hi Giles, On 4/17/13 7:29 AM, "Giles Heron" wrote: > > >The evpn-overlay for DC is an individual draft. As I stated at IETF86 >it's not clear if it fits into our current charter. IIRC we also >discussed this at IETF85 - the issue is that NVO3 isn't doing solutions >yet, but people are already working (as individuals) on solutions. We >have allowed them to present those solutions in L2VPN but we're not going >to adopt them as WG docs any time soon. I would just like to clarify that during IETF86, the discussion regarding in-scope/out-of-scope was for evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding and not evpn-overlay. The former talks about an IRB-based solution to address IP forwarding between different subnets while performing L2 forwarding within a subnet; whereas, the latter discusses how EVPN control plane can be used with VXLAN encapsulation and I believe the latter fits well within the current L2VPN charter. I can see how this confusion is arising because I presented the two drafts back to back. Cheers, Ali =20 From jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Apr 22 12:25:51 2013 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 D628821F9298 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:25:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 n6cSowXr8FDW for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F330221E80B7 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-64.lucent.com [135.5.2.64]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r3MJPkpL010653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:25:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.35]) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r3MJPknn012180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:25:46 -0400 Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.74) by US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:25:46 -0400 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.41]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:25:45 +0200 From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Index: AQHOP48uOEs3PK8qB0K++E34m5HrNA== Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:25:44 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6EDE90939FBDE146B6C38F3DB2E414C7@exchange.lucent.com> 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: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:25:52 -0000 Hi *, The draft states that the use of A-D routes per ESI is MANDATORY (section 9.2.1), whereas the use of A-D routes per EVI is OPTIONAL (section 9.4.1). Draft-sd-l2vpn-overlay-01 states that when NVEs reside on the hypervisor, there is no need for MH, hence there is no need for A-D routes. I fully agree with that statement. Shouldn't we change the use of A-D routes per ESI to OPTIONAL in section 9.2.1 of the base draft? Thank you. Jorge From sajassi@cisco.com Mon Apr 22 13:09:43 2013 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 EB06D21E80D5 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:09:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 ScMBc7sJdsEI for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:09:43 -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 420CF21E80AF for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:09:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=806; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1366661383; x=1367870983; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FkpV9Qy5zZw0YX6ZUuASgd1KQXM/Att8FGmObaUB9II=; b=mGGMBQADHOlrhv65ubFbuiyMgQLBkKd3YyUunnITragAP6c3vvHpb5cM zn3q55woPvAeeOWwAAQWIox6Yhd8mdoIICitEEAkeY0ff/4C2pI52h2Iy KKEGTPvxCafm2eeTJz7J2MwMIrP6flX3Bgrg+AISdwwyHoZ3IkX9PGqi5 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiQFAKKXdVGtJXG//2dsb2JhbABPgmUhgyC+H4EGFnSCIQEEOlEBCCIUQiUCBAESCIgMAbt2jw44gmZhA6gvgwyCKA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,528,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="201682757" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2013 20:09:43 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3MK9g3D005365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:09:42 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:09:42 -0500 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Index: AQHOP48uOEs3PK8qB0K++E34m5HrNJjiif+A Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:09:42 +0000 Message-ID: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B12355B30@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <46A80EAEA971114E9BFC3FF943BED12A@emea.cisco.com> 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, 22 Apr 2013 20:09:44 -0000 Hi Jorge, Eth A-D route per ESI is used for mass withdraw and that's why it is mandatory in a multi-homed operation. If the device is single-homed, then ESI=3D0 and thus there is no Ether A-D route per ESI. Cheers, Ali On 4/22/13 12:25 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" wrote: >Hi *, > >The draft states that the use of A-D routes per ESI is MANDATORY (section >9.2.1), whereas the use of A-D routes per EVI is OPTIONAL (section 9.4.1). >Draft-sd-l2vpn-overlay-01 states that when NVEs reside on the hypervisor, >there is no need for MH, hence there is no need for A-D routes. I fully >agree with that statement. > >Shouldn't we change the use of A-D routes per ESI to OPTIONAL in section >9.2.1 of the base draft? > >Thank you. >Jorge > > > From jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Apr 22 13:38:15 2013 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 E8D8E21E80C4 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:38:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 X3Vh4hZwdyce for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B83821E8097 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-64.lucent.com [135.5.2.64]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r3MKcDIG017652 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:38:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.49]) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r3MKcD6U010041 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:38:13 -0400 Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.112) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:38:13 -0400 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.41]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:38:06 +0200 From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Index: AQHOP48uOEs3PK8qB0K++E34m5HrNJjiif+A//+SmAA= Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:38:06 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B12355B30@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37 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, 22 Apr 2013 20:38:16 -0000 Hi Ali, Thank you. OK, my point was that in a network with no multi-homed PEs (some DC use-cases), the A-D routes are not used at all, hence they are not really mandatory.=20 The MANDATORY statement is within the MH functions section, so I guess I didn't take that into account when I read "mandatory". Maybe an statement re-enforcing the fact that they are "mandatory as long as any multi-homing functions are needed" would help to avoid the confusion? My other only additional comment is that it would be nice to see in section 5.1 of the evpn-overlay draft a paragraph explaining that, even though A-D routes are not required to be generated, they might be required to be interpreted if there are remote multi-homed NVEs. Thanks. Jorge -----Original Message----- From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" Date: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:09 PM To: Jorge Rabadan , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes > >Hi Jorge, > >Eth A-D route per ESI is used for mass withdraw and that's why it is >mandatory in a multi-homed operation. If the device is single-homed, then >ESI=3D0 and thus there is no Ether A-D route per ESI. > >Cheers, >Ali > >On 4/22/13 12:25 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" > wrote: > >>Hi *, >> >>The draft states that the use of A-D routes per ESI is MANDATORY (section >>9.2.1), whereas the use of A-D routes per EVI is OPTIONAL (section >>9.4.1). >>Draft-sd-l2vpn-overlay-01 states that when NVEs reside on the hypervisor, >>there is no need for MH, hence there is no need for A-D routes. I fully >>agree with that statement. >> >>Shouldn't we change the use of A-D routes per ESI to OPTIONAL in section >>9.2.1 of the base draft? >> >>Thank you. >>Jorge >> >> >> > From sajassi@cisco.com Mon Apr 22 15:18:41 2013 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 AA2FC11E80D3 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:18:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 AU2KsY6yX-4V for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:18:37 -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 DB0BE11E80AD for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:18:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2226; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1366669117; x=1367878717; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=3E4AGrUxPh3ZprWgjIRLp6C4bTh2HP9yCZUYa4A9cbM=; b=mBKVUtHwzaVdCMZFlm0+UmG149b4LBGUS3c7Vggq5u5zDwQoQJulBdK6 mjrxybpyu2KA+6r9mbYkneJlHJvw4hmo2/bqlIXjKt7tQP6G0qpUMKkNI 80cjQenho7ybWpGX4vNb3PyinhPRRjNYPFY2CIUIYSfQWGwFnrRU4gbXY o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFADK2dVGtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABPgmUhwUaBBhZ0gh8BAQEEOksGAQgRAwECAQoLCUIdCAIEARIIiAwBu3KPDjgGBFmCA2EDqC+Cfw2CKA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,529,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="201729236" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2013 22:18:32 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3MMIVXJ019664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:18:31 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:18:31 -0500 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Index: AQHOP48uOEs3PK8qB0K++E34m5HrNJjiif+A//+SmACAAJFmAA== Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:18:31 +0000 Message-ID: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B12355C20@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420 x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.71] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <00A0B13F5B0BF34599CE60733939D5F2@emea.cisco.com> 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, 22 Apr 2013 22:18:41 -0000 Hi Jorge, On 4/22/13 1:38 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" wrote: >Hi Ali, > >Thank you. > >OK, my point was that in a network with no multi-homed PEs (some DC >use-cases), the A-D routes are not used at all, hence they are not really >mandatory.=20 > >The MANDATORY statement is within the MH functions section, so I guess I >didn't take that into account when I read "mandatory". Maybe an statement >re-enforcing the fact that they are "mandatory as long as any multi-homing >functions are needed" would help to avoid the confusion? O.K. I'll add a sentence to this effect. > >My other only additional comment is that it would be nice to see in >section 5.1 of the evpn-overlay draft a paragraph explaining that, even >though A-D routes are not required to be generated, they might be required >to be interpreted if there are remote multi-homed NVEs. Yes, Thomas Morin had the same comment at the IETF86. We'll add a paragraph or so to describe this. Cheers, Ali > >Thanks. >Jorge > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" >Date: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:09 PM >To: Jorge Rabadan , "l2vpn@ietf.org" > >Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes > >> >>Hi Jorge, >> >>Eth A-D route per ESI is used for mass withdraw and that's why it is >>mandatory in a multi-homed operation. If the device is single-homed, then >>ESI=3D0 and thus there is no Ether A-D route per ESI. >> >>Cheers, >>Ali >> >>On 4/22/13 12:25 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" >> wrote: >> >>>Hi *, >>> >>>The draft states that the use of A-D routes per ESI is MANDATORY >>>(section >>>9.2.1), whereas the use of A-D routes per EVI is OPTIONAL (section >>>9.4.1). >>>Draft-sd-l2vpn-overlay-01 states that when NVEs reside on the >>>hypervisor, >>>there is no need for MH, hence there is no need for A-D routes. I fully >>>agree with that statement. >>> >>>Shouldn't we change the use of A-D routes per ESI to OPTIONAL in section >>>9.2.1 of the base draft? >>> >>>Thank you. >>>Jorge >>> >>> >>> >> > From smohanty@juniper.net Mon Apr 22 17:56:03 2013 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 07E4A21F9501 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:56:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] 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 0NQ69FL287M6 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D9C21F94FD for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUXXcIgI/CvqCVHIg+dPdVM5k9HljJ/8x@postini.com; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:56:02 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:54:01 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:54:00 -0700 Received: from CO9EHSOBE033.bigfish.com (207.46.163.27) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:03:48 -0700 Received: from mail127-co9-R.bigfish.com (10.236.132.228) by CO9EHSOBE033.bigfish.com (10.236.130.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:54:00 +0000 Received: from mail127-co9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail127-co9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452FE7802FC for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:54:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.236.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BY2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -26 X-BigFish: PS-26(zzbb2dI98dI9371I542I1432I4015Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275bh8275dh1033ILz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1155h) Received: from mail127-co9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail127-co9 (MessageSwitch) id 1366678435969661_19448; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:53:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CO9EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (unknown [10.236.132.251]) by mail127-co9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A4184005B; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:53:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BY2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.236.101) by CO9EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (10.236.130.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:53:54 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0510MB377.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.191]) by BY2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.84.40]) with mapi id 14.16.0299.002; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:53:53 +0000 From: Satya Mohanty To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Index: AQHOP48uOEs3PK8qB0K++E34m5HrNJjiif+A//+SmACAAJFmAIAAR/8A Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:53:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B12355C20@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B12355C20@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%CISCO.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net 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, 23 Apr 2013 00:56:03 -0000 Hi Jorge/Ali, I would prefer to retain the status quo i.e. let the per ES AD Route stay a= s MANDATORY. It's already stated that a single-homed sites can put the ESI to be 0. What an implementation may do with this route (if it does not have any mult= i-homing need) is up to the implementation.=20 My point is, whether a given PE implements Multi-homing or not, if it recei= ves the per ES AD route from another PE, it has to treat it accordingly i.e= . do the mass withdraw procedures. Thanks, --Satya -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of A= li Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:19 PM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge); l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Hi Jorge, On 4/22/13 1:38 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" wrote: >Hi Ali, > >Thank you. > >OK, my point was that in a network with no multi-homed PEs (some DC=20 >use-cases), the A-D routes are not used at all, hence they are not=20 >really mandatory. > >The MANDATORY statement is within the MH functions section, so I guess=20 >I didn't take that into account when I read "mandatory". Maybe an=20 >statement re-enforcing the fact that they are "mandatory as long as any=20 >multi-homing functions are needed" would help to avoid the confusion? O.K. I'll add a sentence to this effect. > >My other only additional comment is that it would be nice to see in=20 >section 5.1 of the evpn-overlay draft a paragraph explaining that, even=20 >though A-D routes are not required to be generated, they might be=20 >required to be interpreted if there are remote multi-homed NVEs. Yes, Thomas Morin had the same comment at the IETF86. We'll add a paragraph= or so to describe this. Cheers, Ali > >Thanks. >Jorge > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" >Date: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:09 PM >To: Jorge Rabadan , "l2vpn@ietf.org" > >Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes > >> >>Hi Jorge, >> >>Eth A-D route per ESI is used for mass withdraw and that's why it is=20 >>mandatory in a multi-homed operation. If the device is single-homed,=20 >>then >>ESI=3D0 and thus there is no Ether A-D route per ESI. >> >>Cheers, >>Ali >> >>On 4/22/13 12:25 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" >> wrote: >> >>>Hi *, >>> >>>The draft states that the use of A-D routes per ESI is MANDATORY=20 >>>(section 9.2.1), whereas the use of A-D routes per EVI is OPTIONAL=20 >>>(section 9.4.1). >>>Draft-sd-l2vpn-overlay-01 states that when NVEs reside on the=20 >>>hypervisor, there is no need for MH, hence there is no need for A-D=20 >>>routes. I fully agree with that statement. >>> >>>Shouldn't we change the use of A-D routes per ESI to OPTIONAL in=20 >>>section >>>9.2.1 of the base draft? >>> >>>Thank you. >>>Jorge >>> >>> >>> >> > From jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Apr 22 19:13:06 2013 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 94ED421F93ED for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:13:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 MWd1tS7B4Afu for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE7A21F93EC for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-64.lucent.com [135.5.2.64]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r3N2Cw8w007494 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:12:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r3N2CvSX002084 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:12:58 -0400 Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.74) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:12:57 -0400 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.41]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 04:12:55 +0200 From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" To: Satya Mohanty , "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Index: AQHOP48uOEs3PK8qB0K++E34m5HrNJjiif+A//+SmACAAJFmAIAAR/8A//+EJ4A= Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:12:54 +0000 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/14.2.5.121010 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <9248295EBF972D4BB96A84C395BBD63A@exchange.lucent.com> 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: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:13:06 -0000 Hi Satya, I think we are basically saying the same thing. Actually my suggestion was to add "an statement re-enforcing the fact that A-D routes per ESI are mandatory as long as any multi-homing functions are needed". Mass withdraw procedures are indeed part of the multi-homing functions, that must be followed not only on the multi-homed PEs but also on the remote PEs (even if they have no ESIs different from zero). Normally you have EVPN networks with at least one non-reserved ESI, but when applied to NVO3, we might have EVPNs where all the NVEs reside in hypervisors, hence no need for A-D per ESI generation/processing. Thank you. Jorge -----Original Message----- From: Satya Mohanty Date: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:53 PM To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , Jorge Rabadan , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes >Hi Jorge/Ali, > >I would prefer to retain the status quo i.e. let the per ES AD Route stay >as MANDATORY. > >It's already stated that a single-homed sites can put the ESI to be 0. >What an implementation may do with this route (if it does not have any >multi-homing need) is up to the implementation. > >My point is, whether a given PE implements Multi-homing or not, if it >receives the per ES AD route from another PE, it has to treat it >accordingly i.e. do the mass withdraw procedures. > >Thanks, >--Satya > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:19 PM >To: Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge); l2vpn@ietf.org >Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes > >Hi Jorge, > >On 4/22/13 1:38 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" > wrote: > >>Hi Ali, >> >>Thank you. >> >>OK, my point was that in a network with no multi-homed PEs (some DC >>use-cases), the A-D routes are not used at all, hence they are not >>really mandatory. >> >>The MANDATORY statement is within the MH functions section, so I guess >>I didn't take that into account when I read "mandatory". Maybe an >>statement re-enforcing the fact that they are "mandatory as long as any >>multi-homing functions are needed" would help to avoid the confusion? > >O.K. I'll add a sentence to this effect. > >> >>My other only additional comment is that it would be nice to see in >>section 5.1 of the evpn-overlay draft a paragraph explaining that, even >>though A-D routes are not required to be generated, they might be >>required to be interpreted if there are remote multi-homed NVEs. > > >Yes, Thomas Morin had the same comment at the IETF86. We'll add a >paragraph or so to describe this. > >Cheers, >Ali > >> >>Thanks. >>Jorge >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" >>Date: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:09 PM >>To: Jorge Rabadan , "l2vpn@ietf.org" >> >>Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes >> >>> >>>Hi Jorge, >>> >>>Eth A-D route per ESI is used for mass withdraw and that's why it is >>>mandatory in a multi-homed operation. If the device is single-homed, >>>then >>>ESI=3D0 and thus there is no Ether A-D route per ESI. >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Ali >>> >>>On 4/22/13 12:25 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" >>> wrote: >>> >>>>Hi *, >>>> >>>>The draft states that the use of A-D routes per ESI is MANDATORY >>>>(section 9.2.1), whereas the use of A-D routes per EVI is OPTIONAL >>>>(section 9.4.1). >>>>Draft-sd-l2vpn-overlay-01 states that when NVEs reside on the >>>>hypervisor, there is no need for MH, hence there is no need for A-D >>>>routes. I fully agree with that statement. >>>> >>>>Shouldn't we change the use of A-D routes per ESI to OPTIONAL in >>>>section >>>>9.2.1 of the base draft? >>>> >>>>Thank you. >>>>Jorge >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > From jdrake@juniper.net Tue Apr 23 11:43:10 2013 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 65CA521F9767 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:43:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] 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 mdN9Q8vZCy0S for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og128.obsmtp.com (exprod7og128.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.121]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9689721F96FA for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob128.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUXbWPalIRPS2zGls02JsjmpPsdrMcNFx@postini.com; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:43:09 PDT Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:36:49 -0700 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:36:49 -0700 Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (213.199.154.209) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:39:48 -0700 Received: from mail69-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.226) by AM1EHSOBE013.bigfish.com (10.3.207.135) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:36:46 +0000 Received: from mail69-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail69-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07ADB2A00E4 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:36:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.244.213; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:CH1PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -26 X-BigFish: PS-26(zzbb2dI98dI9371I542I1432I4015Izz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275bh8275dh1033ILz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1155h) Received: from mail69-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail69-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1366742205694699_12265; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:36:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from AM1EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.228]) by mail69-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B95F3C004B; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:36:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.244.213) by AM1EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (10.3.207.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:36:44 +0000 Received: from CH1PRD0510MB356.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.7.116]) by CH1PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.150.39]) with mapi id 14.16.0299.002; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:36:35 +0000 From: John E Drake To: Satya Mohanty , "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Subject: RE: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes Thread-Index: AQHOP48uOEs3PK8qB0K++E34m5HrNJjiif+A//+SmACAAJFmAIAAR/8AgAEsd+A= Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:36:34 +0000 Message-ID: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D4B33C6@CH1PRD0510MB356.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B12355C20@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.224.52] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%CISCO.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%ALCATEL-LUCENT.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net 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, 23 Apr 2013 18:43:10 -0000 Hi, For the per ES and per EVI Ethernet AD route and the Ethernet Segment route= , the ESI field must be a globally unique non-zero value. For the MAC Adve= rtisement route, per section 10.2.2, the ESI field may be zero. So, a single homed site cannot advertise a per ES Ethernet AD route with an= ESI of zero. It can however advertise a per ES Ethernet AD route with a g= lobally unique non-zero ESI value. I.e., there is no detectable difference= between this case and a multi-homed site with only one active PE.=20 Irrespectively Yours, John > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Satya Mohanty > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 5:54 PM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge); l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes >=20 > Hi Jorge/Ali, >=20 > I would prefer to retain the status quo i.e. let the per ES AD Route > stay as MANDATORY. >=20 > It's already stated that a single-homed sites can put the ESI to be 0. > What an implementation may do with this route (if it does not have any > multi-homing need) is up to the implementation. >=20 > My point is, whether a given PE implements Multi-homing or not, if it > receives the per ES AD route from another PE, it has to treat it > accordingly i.e. do the mass withdraw procedures. >=20 > Thanks, > --Satya >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:19 PM > To: Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge); l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes >=20 > Hi Jorge, >=20 > On 4/22/13 1:38 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" > wrote: >=20 > >Hi Ali, > > > >Thank you. > > > >OK, my point was that in a network with no multi-homed PEs (some DC > >use-cases), the A-D routes are not used at all, hence they are not > >really mandatory. > > > >The MANDATORY statement is within the MH functions section, so I guess > >I didn't take that into account when I read "mandatory". Maybe an > >statement re-enforcing the fact that they are "mandatory as long as > any > >multi-homing functions are needed" would help to avoid the confusion? >=20 > O.K. I'll add a sentence to this effect. >=20 > > > >My other only additional comment is that it would be nice to see in > >section 5.1 of the evpn-overlay draft a paragraph explaining that, > even > >though A-D routes are not required to be generated, they might be > >required to be interpreted if there are remote multi-homed NVEs. >=20 >=20 > Yes, Thomas Morin had the same comment at the IETF86. We'll add a > paragraph or so to describe this. >=20 > Cheers, > Ali >=20 > > > >Thanks. > >Jorge > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" > >Date: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:09 PM > >To: Jorge Rabadan , "l2vpn@ietf.org" > > > >Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 and MANDATORY A-D routes > > > >> > >>Hi Jorge, > >> > >>Eth A-D route per ESI is used for mass withdraw and that's why it is > >>mandatory in a multi-homed operation. If the device is single-homed, > >>then > >>ESI=3D0 and thus there is no Ether A-D route per ESI. > >> > >>Cheers, > >>Ali > >> > >>On 4/22/13 12:25 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" > >> wrote: > >> > >>>Hi *, > >>> > >>>The draft states that the use of A-D routes per ESI is MANDATORY > >>>(section 9.2.1), whereas the use of A-D routes per EVI is OPTIONAL > >>>(section 9.4.1). > >>>Draft-sd-l2vpn-overlay-01 states that when NVEs reside on the > >>>hypervisor, there is no need for MH, hence there is no need for A-D > >>>routes. I fully agree with that statement. > >>> > >>>Shouldn't we change the use of A-D routes per ESI to OPTIONAL in > >>>section > >>>9.2.1 of the base draft? > >>> > >>>Thank you. > >>>Jorge > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >=20 >=20 >=20 From johnsonhammond1@hushmail.com Sat Apr 27 14:57:59 2013 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 56FD521F9921 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:57:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, 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 XQ9VryItMwzo for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (smtp1a.hushmail.com [65.39.178.236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD9E21F9920 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.hushmail.com (smtp1a.hushmail.com [65.39.178.236]) by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 03306303C0 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:44:56 +0000 (UTC) X-hush-relay-time: 214 X-hush-relay-id: b1bd903faba185ee07e5a0ed3a1fde37 Received: from smtp.hushmail.com (w5.hushmail.com [65.39.178.80]) by smtp1.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:44:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id C218BE6736; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:44:55 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:44:55 -0400 To: l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science From: johnsonhammond1@hushmail.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: <20130427174455.C218BE6736@smtp.hushmail.com> 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, 27 Apr 2013 21:57:59 -0000 Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP ( http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 ) organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any reviews) and we were invited to submit the final paper and a payment of $500+ fee to present the paper. We decided to use the fee for better purposes than making Prof. Hamid Arabnia (Chairman of WORLDCOMP) rich. After that, we received few reminders from WORLDCOMP to pay the fee but we never responded. We MUST say that you should look at the above website if you have any thoughts to submit a paper to WORLDCOMP. DBLP and other indexing agencies have stopped indexing WORLDCOMP’s proceedings since 2011 due to its fakeness. See http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/icai/index.html for of one of the conferences of WORLDCOMP and notice that there is no listing after 2010. See Section 2 of http://sites.google.com/site/dumpconf for comments from well-known researchers about WORLDCOMP. The status of your WORLDCOMP papers can be changed from scientific to other (i.e., junk or non-technical) at any time. Better not to have a paper than having it in WORLDCOMP and spoil the resume and peace of mind forever! Our study revealed that WORLDCOMP is a money making business, using University of Georgia mask, for Prof. Hamid Arabnia. He is throwing out a small chunk of that money (around 20 dollars per paper published in WORLDCOMP’s proceedings) to his puppet (Mr. Ashu Solo or A.M.G. Solo) who publicizes WORLDCOMP and also defends it at various forums, using fake/anonymous names. The puppet uses fake names and defames other conferences to divert traffic to WORLDCOMP. He also makes anonymous phone calls and tries to threaten the critiques of WORLDCOMP (See Item 7 of Section 5 of above website). That is, the puppet does all his best to get a maximum number of papers published at WORLDCOMP to get more money into his (and Prof. Hamid Arabnia’s) pockets. Monte Carlo Resort (the venue of WORLDCOMP for more than 10 years, until 2012) has refused to provide the venue for WORLDCOMP’13 because of the fears of their image being tarnished due to WORLDCOMP’s fraudulent activities. That is why WORLDCOMP’13 is taking place at a different resort. WORLDCOMP will not be held after 2013. The draft paper submission deadline is over but still there are no committee members, no reviewers, and there is no conference Chairman. The only contact details available on WORLDCOMP’s website is just an email address! Let us make a direct request to Prof. Hamid arabnia: publish all reviews for all the papers (after blocking identifiable details) since 2000 conference. Reveal the names and affiliations of all the reviewers (for each year) and how many papers each reviewer had reviewed on average. We also request him to look at the Open Challenge (Section 6) at https://sites.google.com/site/moneycomp1 Sorry for posting to multiple lists. Spreading the word is the only way to stop this bogus conference. Please forward this message to other mailing lists and people. We are shocked with Prof. Hamid Arabnia and his puppet’s activities http://worldcomp-fake-bogus.blogspot.com Search Google using the keyword worldcomp fake for additional links.