From daniel@olddog.co.uk Fri Nov 5 12:44:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351BB3A6928 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:44:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.091 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.508, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KfGgKY6-FRLM for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0763A6924 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA5Jj7fo013017 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:45:07 GMT Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA5Jj6Jt013011 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:45:06 GMT From: "Daniel King" To: Subject: Final Agenda for L3VPN Session IETF 79 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:41:54 -0000 Message-ID: <00c501cb7d21$807560c0$81602240$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C6_01CB7D21.8075FD00" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 thread-index: Act9IXtLSc2eDBn3QpONfCGECHZ9Rg== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:44:56 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C6_01CB7D21.8075FD00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, The final agenda for our meeting (Tuesday, November 9, 1300-1500) has been posted: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/l3vpn/agenda If you are presenting please send me the slides no later than Monday evening. See you Beijing! Br, Dan. ------=_NextPart_000_00C6_01CB7D21.8075FD00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi All, =

 

The final agenda for our meeting (Tuesday, November 9, = 1300-1500) has been posted:

 

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/l= 3vpn/agenda

 

If you are = presenting please send me the slides no later than Monday evening. =

 

See you Beijing!

Br, Dan.  

------=_NextPart_000_00C6_01CB7D21.8075FD00-- From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Sun Nov 7 21:17:21 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A0228C132 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:17:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PEw4A0M5NwYm for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:17:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799D528C100 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:17:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-22dd.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.34.221]) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PFK6n-0000XH-4q for l3vpn@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 05:17:33 +0000 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: L3VPN slides are now available online Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 05:17:31 +0000 Message-Id: <66C5DFCE-0A19-4965-B34D-02BB4BEACE41@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: l3vpn@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 05:17:21 -0000 Colleagues, I have uploaded the presentation slides for our meeting tomorrow = afternoon & updated the agenda with links to them: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/agenda/l3vpn.txt Also, following a conversation with the L2VPN chairs & our ADs I intend = to solicit some initial feedback on the concept of merging L2VPN & L3VPN = into a single WG. It would be useful for that discussion if you all give the idea some = thought & bring your opinions to the meeting (or to the chairs/ADs = directly). I believe there will be a similar discussion happening in = L2VPN later in the week. Regards Ben From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon Nov 8 09:15:02 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D893A6992; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:15:02 -0800 (PST) X-Quarantine-ID: <1CaoDB7JYrV8> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, MIME error: error: unexpected end of preamble X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.235 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.421, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_MIME_HB_SEP=2.119, SARE_BOUNDARY_LC=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1CaoDB7JYrV8; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826F43A682F; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:15:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nextpart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no Message-ID: <20101108171501.11917.78674.idtracker@localhost> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:15:01 -0800 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:15:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv4 and IPv6 Infrastructure Addresses in MCAST-VPN Routes Author(s) : R. Aggarwal, E. Rosen Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2010-11-08 To provide Multicast VPN service, a provider edge router originates Multicast-VPN ("MCAST-VPN") BGP routes. These routes encode addresses from the customer's address space as well as addresses from the provider's address space. The customer's address space may be either IPv4 or IPv6. Independently, the provider's address space may be either IPv4 or IPv6. The MCAST-VPN BGP routes always contain an "address family" field that specifies whether the customer addresses are IPv4 addresses or whether they are IPv6 addresses. However, there is no field that explicitly specifies whether the provider addresses are IPv4 addresses or whether they are IPv6 addresses. To ensure interoperability, this document specifies that MCAST-VPN routes always encode provider IPv4 addresses as four-octet addresses, and that the distinction between an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address is signaled solely by the length of the address field. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-11-08091025.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon Nov 8 09:30:03 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3F63A69AC; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:30:03 -0800 (PST) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, MIME error: error: unexpected end of preamble X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.234 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_MIME_HB_SEP=2.119, SARE_BOUNDARY_LC=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KHBzHooK4kVd; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:30:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C77D3A69C7; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:30:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nextpart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no Message-ID: <20101108173002.16352.78785.idtracker@localhost> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:30:02 -0800 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:30:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 MVPN Support Using PIM Control Plane and S-PMSI Join Messages Author(s) : Y. Cai, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2010-11-08 The specification for Multicast Virtual Private Networks (MVPN) contains an option that allows the use of PIM as the control protocol between provider edge routers. It also contains an option that allows UDP-based messages, known as S-PMSI ("Selective Provider Multicast Service Interface") Join messages, to be used to bind particular customer multicast flows to particular tunnels through a service provider's network. This document extends the MVPN specification so that these options can be used when the customer multicast flows are IPv6 flows. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-11-08092340.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon Nov 8 18:16:38 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3912C28C2B6; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:16:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.914 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.914 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.685, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YPutFa95smUU; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:16:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1699428C179; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:15:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no Message-ID: <20101109021539.26008.39348.idtracker@localhost> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:15:39 -0800 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:16:38 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv4 and IPv6 Infrastructure Addresses in MCAST-VPN Routes Author(s) : R. Aggarwal, E. Rosen Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2010-11-08 To provide Multicast VPN service, a provider edge router originates Multicast-VPN ("MCAST-VPN") BGP routes. These routes encode addresses from the customer's address space as well as addresses from the provider's address space. The customer's address space may be either IPv4 or IPv6. Independently, the provider's address space may be either IPv4 or IPv6. The MCAST-VPN BGP routes always contain an "address family" field that specifies whether the customer addresses are IPv4 addresses or whether they are IPv6 addresses. However, there is no field that explicitly specifies whether the provider addresses are IPv4 addresses or whether they are IPv6 addresses. To ensure interoperability, this document specifies that MCAST-VPN routes always encode provider IPv4 addresses as four-octet addresses, and that the distinction between an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address is signaled solely by the length of the address field. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-11-08091025.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon Nov 8 18:16:39 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3EB53A6A11; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:16:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.924 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.675, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RCOpepBIwnYV; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:16:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4300628C159; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:15:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no Message-ID: <20101109021539.26008.69799.idtracker@localhost> Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:15:39 -0800 Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 02:16:39 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 MVPN Support Using PIM Control Plane and S-PMSI Join Messages Author(s) : Y. Cai, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2010-11-08 The specification for Multicast Virtual Private Networks (MVPN) contains an option that allows the use of PIM as the control protocol between provider edge routers. It also contains an option that allows UDP-based messages, known as S-PMSI ("Selective Provider Multicast Service Interface") Join messages, to be used to bind particular customer multicast flows to particular tunnels through a service provider's network. This document extends the MVPN specification so that these options can be used when the customer multicast flows are IPv6 flows. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2010-11-08092340.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Mon Nov 15 10:04:53 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD1C28C1E2 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:04:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.082, BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z93cTi0ZTqdD for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:04:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4081028C120 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:04:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=dhcp-105-devlan.cachelogic.com) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PI3Qk-0005uD-Mh; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:05:27 +0000 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:05:25 +0000 Message-Id: <7C29F4DB-657E-4045-9BB9-CAE24F587A58@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: l3vpn@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:04:53 -0000 Colleagues, This e-mail is the start of a 2 week WG Last Call for = draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Feedback should be provided to the mailing list and/or the authors. The Last Call ends 18:00 PST 29th November 2010. Regards Ben From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Mon Nov 15 10:55:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C853A6C40 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:55:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qhff3z0FAnMp for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:55:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB133A6A1A for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 10:55:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id oAFIuUnf032350 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:56:30 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.43]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:56:30 +0100 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Ben Niven-Jenkins , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:56:28 +0100 Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Thread-Topic: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Thread-Index: AcuE7+LgM/4LkRt5Qv+K9a+ha068xgABun+A Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D6716F2521A@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <7C29F4DB-657E-4045-9BB9-CAE24F587A58@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <7C29F4DB-657E-4045-9BB9-CAE24F587A58@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.13 Cc: "l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:55:56 -0000 support -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= en Niven-Jenkins Sent: maandag 15 november 2010 19:05 To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Colleagues, This e-mail is the start of a 2 week WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn= -infra-addrs-01: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Feedback should be provided to the mailing list and/or the authors. The Last Call ends 18:00 PST 29th November 2010. Regards Ben From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Mon Nov 15 13:00:40 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5156528C127 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:00:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JVCL7ie+oRZT for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415CC28C174 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:00:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAFL0Sxb025263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:00:29 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.213]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:00:28 -0500 From: Jeff Tantsura To: Ben Niven-Jenkins , "l3vpn@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:00:27 -0500 Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Thread-Topic: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Thread-Index: AcuE77u/nkaO1dCgSqGBKM3oZqDCKgAGGBAQ Message-ID: <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF60A9F110F17@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <7C29F4DB-657E-4045-9BB9-CAE24F587A58@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <7C29F4DB-657E-4045-9BB9-CAE24F587A58@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:00:41 -0000 Yes/support Regards, Jeff =20 -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= en Niven-Jenkins Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:05 To: l3vpn@ietf.org Cc: l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Colleagues, This e-mail is the start of a 2 week WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn= -infra-addrs-01: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Feedback should be provided to the mailing list and/or the authors. The Last Call ends 18:00 PST 29th November 2010. Regards Ben From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Mon Nov 15 16:33:18 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3D53A6C62 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:33:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JVhthY+73jPk for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:33:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4559F3A6C58 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:33:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from host86-156-248-113.range86-156.btcentralplus.com ([86.156.248.113] helo=unknown-00-22-43-25-f9-66.home) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PI9Ud-0002vQ-5q; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:33:51 +0000 References: <7C29F4DB-657E-4045-9BB9-CAE24F587A58@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF60A9F110F17@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF60A9F110F17@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Benjamin Niven-Jenkins Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:33:48 +0000 To: Jeff Tantsura X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: "l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:33:19 -0000 Whoa, This isn't a poll. It's a WG Last Call. This is your last chance before = the document is forwarded to the IESG for you to review the draft and = provide any comments you have. If you don't have any comments you can = remain silent if you wish. Ben On 15 Nov 2010, at 21:00, Jeff Tantsura wrote: > Yes/support >=20 > Regards, > Jeff =20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Ben Niven-Jenkins > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:05 > To: l3vpn@ietf.org > Cc: l3vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 >=20 > Colleagues, >=20 > This e-mail is the start of a 2 week WG Last Call for = draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01: >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-infra-addrs-01 >=20 > Feedback should be provided to the mailing list and/or the authors. >=20 > The Last Call ends 18:00 PST 29th November 2010. >=20 > Regards > Ben >=20 From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Tue Nov 16 03:42:36 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7DB3A6C7F for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:42:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.623, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wJF6VstamhDk for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:42:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A120C3A6ACE for ; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:42:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=dhcp-105-devlan.cachelogic.com) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PIJwU-0007Ic-HS for l3vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:43:18 +0000 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: L3VPN @ IETF80 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:43:18 +0000 Message-Id: <2AFD4AFD-E94F-4E54-9484-E3F40CF932DE@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: l3vpn@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:42:36 -0000 Colleagues, For the last couple of IETF's our agenda has been pretty light. = Therefore for IETF80 we will take a slightly different approach to = building the L3VPN agenda to what we have done in the past. In early January 2011 the chairs will ask for people to request agenda = slots for IETF80 (which is much earlier than we would normally kick this = off). If we do not get sufficient requests for agenda slots the chairs = will *not* request a face to face meeting slot at IETF80. If the WG does = not meet at IETF80, the chairs will still provide a WG status update to = the mailing list If there are not sufficient requests to justify a face to face meeting = but the WG feels that there are topics that cannot be dealt with purely = via the mailing list, the chairs will arrange to hold an online interim = meeting via teleconference/webex. What this means is that you probably need to start thinking about what = topics you may require time for at IETF80, and start to discuss them on = the mailing list if you think they may require face to face discussion = in Prague to resolve. Ben From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Nov 18 08:00:31 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8E93A687F; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:00:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.271 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.272, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OtUQfsD-tAQZ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8A93A688A; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:00:30 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Subject: Protocol Action: 'IPv6 MVPN Support Using PIM Control Plane and S-PMSI Join Messages' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt) X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.09 Message-ID: <20101118160030.22491.10821.idtracker@localhost> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:00:30 -0800 Cc: l3vpn chair , Internet Architecture Board , l3vpn mailing list , RFC Editor X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:00:31 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IPv6 MVPN Support Using PIM Control Plane and S-PMSI Join Messages' (draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-02.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins/ Technical Summary The specification for Multicast Virtual Private Networks (MVPN) contains an option that allows the use of PIM as the control protocol between provider edge routers. It also contains an option that allows UDP-based "S-PMSI Join" messages to be used to bind particular customer multicast flows to particular tunnels through a service provider's network. This document extends the MVPN specification so that these options can be used when the customer multicast flows are IPv6 flows. Working Group Summary This document is a product of L3VPN WG. There were no technical comments on the document during the WG Last Call, which was completed in August 2010. Document Quality The document has been reviewed and there are no unresolved issues. There are no known impersonations of the protocol. Personnel Ben Niven-Jenkins is the Document Shepherd. Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director. From yakov@juniper.net Mon Nov 22 10:24:16 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB6D28C10D for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:24:16 -0800 (PST) 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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WwNXFravkc9c for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8877C3A687F for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:24:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTOq1heNP/E753VOWv50MqYXR4Ts/uzor@postini.com; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:25:11 PST Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:21:47 -0800 Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id oAMILlU93034; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:21:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net) Message-ID: <201011221821.oAMILlU93034@magenta.juniper.net> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Subject: Re: Discussing additional milestones that could be adopted by the WG? In-Reply-To: <4BA3143C-E101-4F0A-8A6A-068F56166070@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <98A3E2E9-0D5C-447C-AD8D-B0AFA2A1A7AB@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4BA3143C-E101-4F0A-8A6A-068F56166070@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MH-In-Reply-To: Ben Niven-Jenkins message dated "Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:14:23 +0100." MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <38150.1290450107.1@juniper.net> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:21:47 -0800 From: Yakov Rekhter Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:24:16 -0000 Ben, > Colleagues, > > To follow-up on this, from comments on the mailing list and private > conversations between the chairs and some participants it would > appear that for BiDir P- tunnels at least: > > - There is interest in the work and some loose agreement among the people > that we spoke with that the existing specifications only minimally > specify solutions using BiDir P-tunnels > > - But that there are some quite different views on what the scope of any work > on BiDir P-tunnels should be. > > We already have draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir on the table which has > received some debate. It would be useful if one or more of the > people that are not happy with the scope of draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir > were to make alternative proposal(s) for the scope of work required > to address BiDir P-tunnels so we can see where the common ground > may be as a start to see if we can progress a specification for > BiDir P-tunnels. The scope of work in support of mp2mp P-tunnels should be guided by draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations. >From draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations: The use of MP2MP P-tunnels may provide some scaling benefits to the service provider as only a single MP2MP P-tunnel need be deployed per VPN, thus reducing by an order of magnitude the amount of multicast state that needs to be maintained by P routers. Therefore, the scope of work should be limited to the cases where mp2mp P-tunnels do provide scaling benefits in conjunction with the C-multicast routing schemes defined in [MVPN]. Specifically, the scope of work should be limited to (1) use of mp2mp P-tunnels for I-PMSI, and (2) support of C-bidir with the "Partitioned Sets of PEs" method using a partial mesh of mp2mp P-tunnels (as discussed in section 11.2.3 of [MVPN]). >From draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations: 5. Avoiding duplicates It is recommended that implementations support the procedures described in section 9.1.1 of [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast] "Discarding Packets from Wrong PE", allowing fully avoiding duplicates. Therefore, use of mp2mp P-tunnels for I-PMSI must fully specify procedures to support 9.1.1 of [MVPN]. New work must not change/modify the existing procedures specified in [MVPN] and [BGP-MVPN]. New work must not introduce new mechanisms and/or procedures unless it shows that the mechanisms/procedures specified in [MVPN] and [BGP-MVPN] are insufficient for the purpose of delivering what is within the scope (as described above). Yakov. From daniel@olddog.co.uk Tue Nov 23 13:03:09 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30783A69B5 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:03:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.453, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I6qP--go4qxP for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EA03A695C for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oANL43JU020866; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:04:03 GMT Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oANL42x4020862; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:04:02 GMT From: "Daniel King" To: Subject: Draft Minutes for L3VPN Session at IETF 79 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:04:04 -0000 Message-ID: <032f01cb8b51$f64e2780$e2ea7680$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0330_01CB8B51.F64EC3C0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AcuLUeIVc7FHRoqkQ+exanhvuTVNqA== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:03:09 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0330_01CB8B51.F64EC3C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, I have uploaded the draft minutes for IETF 79. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/l3vpn.htm Please email me, and CC co-chairs, if you have a correction requests by Sunday, 5th December. I have one request myself. There was a speaker, in addition to Tom, at the mike who made a comment about MIBs. If they could email me their name and discussion point, I will update the minutes. Br, Dan. ------=_NextPart_000_0330_01CB8B51.F64EC3C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi All,

 

I have uploaded the = draft minutes for IETF 79.

 

http://www.= ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/l3vpn.htm

 

Please email me, and CC = co-chairs, if you have a correction requests by Sunday, 5th = December. I have one request myself. There was a speaker, in addition to = Tom, at the mike who made a comment about MIBs. If they could email me = their name and discussion point, I will update the = minutes.

 

Br, = Dan.

------=_NextPart_000_0330_01CB8B51.F64EC3C0-- From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Wed Nov 24 02:25:22 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F4528C118; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:25:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.064 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.064 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.665, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tq1Li8CW62z9; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:25:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007493A6A28; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:25:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from 212.44.61.29.ip.redstone-isp.net ([212.44.61.29] helo=[192.168.100.111]) by mail10.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLCYM-0005hD-Ub; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:26:19 +0000 From: Ben Niven-Jenkins Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:26:15 +0000 Message-Id: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: l3vpn@ietf.org, l2vpn@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:25:22 -0000 L2 & L3VPNers, We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the = L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a = charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both = existing charters. There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and = we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an = opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a = comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send = them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the = chairs. Ben (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From loa@pi.nu Wed Nov 24 03:01:11 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2255628C182; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:01:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DJF7TG4FfyF4; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:01:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pi.nu (mail.pi.nu [194.71.127.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4898928C153; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:01:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.64] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by mail.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A352C514021; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:02:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4CECF0AF.2020102@pi.nu> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:02:07 +0100 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:01:11 -0000 Ben, I was involved in splitting the PPVPN working into L2VPN and L3VPN, while I'm not opposed to the proposal to re-merged and did was not in the Beijing discussion, I'd like to what the reasons are for the re-merge. /Loa On 2010-11-24 11:26, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > L2& L3VPNers, > > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN& L3VPN WGs. > > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN& L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existing charters. > > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. > > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to the L2VPN& L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. > > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) > > -- Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@pi.nu Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 +46 767 72 92 13 From xuxh@huawei.com Wed Nov 24 03:29:37 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189A528C1AB; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:29:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.506 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3GyObPRxTCsN; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A12328C15D; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:29:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LCD00JOIZYP3S@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:30:25 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LCD00DUKZYPUO@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:30:25 +0800 (CST) Received: from x41208c ([10.110.98.169]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LCD00GKPZYOHX@szxml04-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:30:25 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:34:59 +0800 From: Xu Xiaohu Subject: re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? In-reply-to: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: 'Ben Niven-Jenkins' , l3vpn@ietf.org, l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <002301cb8bcb$a0d75680$a9626e0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Thread-index: AcuLwhmf8uXUYhCSTcGHMnjTh/10oQACJSQg X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:29:37 -0000 Hi, I support the idea of merging the L2VPN and L3VPN WGs since L2VPN and = L3VPN shares some common components. Best wishes, Xiaohu > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED Ben > Niven-Jenkins > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2010=C4=EA11=D4=C224=C8=D5 18:26 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? >=20 > L2 & L3VPNers, >=20 > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the = L2VPN & > L3VPN WGs. >=20 > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with = a charter > that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both = existing > charters. >=20 > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd > like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. >=20 > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an = opinion (for > or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you = made at > the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to = the L2VPN > & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. >=20 > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Wed Nov 24 04:15:14 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4293A6A35; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:15:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.004 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.605, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RtbehHq4DO9P; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:15:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357FE3A692A; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:15:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from host1.cachelogic.com ([212.44.43.80] helo=[172.16.18.188]) by mail5.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLEGh-0002fB-OS; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:16:12 +0000 Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <4CECF0AF.2020102@pi.nu> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:16:10 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <99395AC8-3E0C-4A5D-A722-94F611D781E0@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4CECF0AF.2020102@pi.nu> To: Loa Andersson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:15:14 -0000 Loa, On 24 Nov 2010, at 11:02, Loa Andersson wrote: > Ben, >=20 > I was involved in splitting the PPVPN working into L2VPN and L3VPN, > while I'm not opposed to the proposal to re-merged and did was not > in the Beijing discussion, I'd like to what the reasons are for the > re-merge. >=20 Firstly to avoid confusion, we're just "information gathering" at this = stage. The embryonic thinking was primarily that PPVPN split due in part = because of the size of the workload, whereas the combined workload of = L2VPN & L3VPN could probably be handled by a single WG now. In Beijing (inside the WG sessions & in the corridor) some folks also = expressed a view that upcoming Data Center related requirements may = require some mix of L2VPN & L3VPN technologies that could possibly = benefit from having the VPN related work in a single WG. Although I = would say that the scope & specific requirements of the "upcoming Data = Center" work is not well enough defined yet to substantiate whether = merging L2+L3VPN for that purpose would provide significant benefits. HTH Ben > /Loa >=20 > On 2010-11-24 11:26, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: >> L2& L3VPNers, >>=20 >> We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the = L2VPN& L3VPN WGs. >>=20 >> The proposal was to merge the L2VPN& L3VPN WGs into a single WG with = a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both = existing charters. >>=20 >> There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone = and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. >>=20 >> We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an = opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a = comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send = them either to the L2VPN& L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the = chairs. >>=20 >> Ben >> (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > --=20 >=20 >=20 > Loa Andersson email: = loa.andersson@ericsson.com > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@pi.nu > Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 > +46 767 72 92 13 From thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com Wed Nov 24 04:53:47 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98F128C1E5 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:53:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.117, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vPstmgpLHWvW for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:53:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD79228C1C4 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:53:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 10ADA8B8004 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:55:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.46]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061F48B8001 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:55:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:54:45 +0100 Received: from [10.193.15.19] ([10.193.15.19]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:54:44 +0100 Message-ID: <4CED0B14.5060109@orange-ftgroup.com> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:54:44 +0100 From: Thomas Morin Organization: France Telecom Orange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; ; ; ) Gecko/2010 Thunderbird/3.1.x MIME-Version: 1.0 To: l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2010 12:54:44.0740 (UTC) FILETIME=[C492AC40:01CB8BD6] X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:53:47 -0000 Hi Ben, If I've understood correctly the area that would make a merge relevant is the area of work coming from datacenter requirements. I haven't heard of other arguments for merging (except backward looking arguments on PPVPN). My feeling is that: first, these requirements need to be identified and formulated, second, how the resulting work could be done need to be identified. I think that these are the preliminaries before we can tell if joint l2vpn/l3vpn work need to be done, and this is the required input needed to see if the right thing would be to merge WGs or do just do joint work (eg. joint document adoption + joint WG LC). As far as I see, we don't have that input yet. In parallel, we'll see how the amount of stuff to do in l3vpn evolves: how fast we progress on the items in the new charter, how much meeting time is needed, etc. The feeling that datacenter issues may converge between L2VPN and L3VPN and the fact that l3vpn agendas have been light in recent meetings, are I think not enough to call for merging the two working groups. If we add that L2VPN chairs and some participants don't seem to think that l2vpn would easily host more work, then merging really doesn't look to me as a very good idea, at least today. Thanks, -Thomas Ben Niven-Jenkins a écrit : > L2& L3VPNers, > > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN& L3VPN WGs. > > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN& L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existing charters. > > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. > > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to the L2VPN& L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. > > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) > > From nurit.sprecher@nsn.com Wed Nov 24 02:57:23 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A69A28C146; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:57:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.844 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yEag9vPPmVKC; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:57:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149F928B797; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 02:57:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oAOAwIu8004433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:58:18 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oAOAwDH2022460; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:58:18 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.25]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:58:06 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:58:04 +0100 Message-ID: <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326402F4DA10@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuLwhMv9o3KwvrDRMu+9ppqtCkYLgAAQbZQ References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" To: "ext Ben Niven-Jenkins" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2010 10:58:06.0152 (UTC) FILETIME=[7916E480:01CB8BC6] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:30:21 -0800 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:57:23 -0000 Hi, I support the proposal to re-merge the groups. I think I proposed it already in the L3VPN meeting in Anaheim..saying that we started with PPVPN and then splitted it into the two WGs, but now as it clear that these services (L2VPN andL3VPN) will be provided over the same networks and share the same infrastructure it seems to me more appropriate to re-merge these groups and ensure that we try to optimize and generalize and unify the mechanisms as far as reasonably possible for the enabling of both kinds of services, and to ensure that the mechanisms defined consider both kinds of services...etc.=20 I see a lot of benefits from merging the groups and I support it! Best regards, Nurit -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ben Niven-Jenkins Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:26 PM To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? L2 & L3VPNers, We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existing charters. There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. Ben (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From josh.rogers@twcable.com Wed Nov 24 08:03:45 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2FC28C27E; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:03:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.737 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.737 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ITb0C9T7dRCB; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:03:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A9528C275; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:03:33 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.14 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,248,1288584000"; d="scan'208";a="158747410" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.14]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 24 Nov 2010 11:04:33 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS08.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.37]) by PRVPEXHUB05.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.14]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:04:32 -0500 From: "Rogers, Josh" To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:04:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuL8UfVyZpQhUN7T2C/9tSxb2Sypw== Message-ID: <07BF66EB-6FAB-49C6-921D-8FDA524F1BC7@twcable.com> References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:49:49 -0800 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:03:45 -0000 I believe that the benefit for having them separated is work output by the = groups is clearly purposed for either a L2VPN or L3VPN application. Just b= ecause the underlying technologies are the same, it is not safe to assume i= t is used the same, or the application will have the same requirements. I= don't think a merge will necessarily undo this benefit, but if we are not = purposed in this regard, the result will be documents that are unclear, vag= ue, or assuming (one application or the other), which is not good. I support the merge if the charter were to include purposing l2vpn specific= , l3vpn specific, and more general initiatives that may include both applic= ations, and intent to clearly define what application(s) each document appl= ies to, and how it applies. -Josh On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:26 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > L2 & L3VPNers, > > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VP= N & L3VPN WGs. > > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a c= harter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both exist= ing charters. > > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we= 'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. > > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinio= n (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you= made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either t= o the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. > > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From nurit.sprecher@nsn.com Wed Nov 24 09:40:57 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAFA28C10E; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:40:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.78 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.381, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p8ZmZiojlqTf; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:40:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F197D3A691E; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oAOHfijD029004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:41:44 +0100 Received: from demuexc022.nsn-intra.net (demuexc022.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.35]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oAOHfglm005620; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:41:44 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.25]) by demuexc022.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:41:43 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:41:42 +0100 Message-ID: <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326402F4DEF0@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <07BF66EB-6FAB-49C6-921D-8FDA524F1BC7@twcable.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuL8UfVyZpQhUN7T2C/9tSxb2SypwAAhm8Q References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <07BF66EB-6FAB-49C6-921D-8FDA524F1BC7@twcable.com> From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" To: "ext Rogers, Josh" , "Ben Niven-Jenkins" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2010 17:41:43.0035 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB79FCB0:01CB8BFE] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:49:49 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:40:57 -0000 I definitely agree with your proposal for the charter... -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Rogers, Josh Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:05 PM To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? I believe that the benefit for having them separated is work output by the groups is clearly purposed for either a L2VPN or L3VPN application. Just because the underlying technologies are the same, it is not safe to assume it is used the same, or the application will have the same requirements. I don't think a merge will necessarily undo this benefit, but if we are not purposed in this regard, the result will be documents that are unclear, vague, or assuming (one application or the other), which is not good. I support the merge if the charter were to include purposing l2vpn specific, l3vpn specific, and more general initiatives that may include both applications, and intent to clearly define what application(s) each document applies to, and how it applies. -Josh On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:26 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > L2 & L3VPNers, > > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. > > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existing charters. > > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. > > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. > > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) > > 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 nick.delregno@verizon.com Wed Nov 24 11:21:46 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0413A69AF; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:21:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.956 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.557, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7UOg46-sBHgZ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:21:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ashesmtp03.verizonbusiness.com (ashesmtp03.verizonbusiness.com [198.4.8.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D65E3A69A5; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:21:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from omzismtp01.vzbi.com ([unknown] [165.122.46.164]) by firewall.verizonbusiness.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with ESMTP id <0LCE0017NLTO3Q80@firewall.verizonbusiness.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:22:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from omzismtp01.vzbi.com ([unknown] [127.0.0.1]) by omzismtp01.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with ESMTP id <0LCE00619LTNW700@omzismtp01.vzbi.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:22:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ASHSRV141.mcilink.com ([unknown] [153.39.68.167]) by omzismtp01.vzbi.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.03 32bit (built May 29 2009)) with ESMTP id <0LCE00612LTMW500@omzismtp01.vzbi.com>; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:22:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ASHEVS008.mcilink.com ([153.39.69.145]) by ASHSRV141.mcilink.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:22:34 +0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:22:33 +0000 Message-id: <14584D6EE26B314187A4F68BA206060005DB5053@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> In-reply-to: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-index: AcuLwhLUkj4QCN3IRGaxXTl4Vku0CAASoiyg References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: "Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)" To: Ben Niven-Jenkins , l3vpn@ietf.org, l2vpn@ietf.org X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2010 19:22:34.0477 (UTC) FILETIME=[F26AC1D0:01CB8C0C] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:36:28 -0800 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:21:46 -0000 In the Beijing meeting, we discussed this and there seemed to be favor in not merging the two groups, for now. Given the backlog of work items in L2VPN, and the upcoming recharter, the idea of a list-only group seemed to be the favored option. I would support this approach over recombining the groups. With that said, if there are L3VPN items which need to be addressed in a meeting environment, we could certainly look at accommodating on the L2VPN agenda if there is room. Thanks, Nick -----Original Message----- From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 4:26 AM To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? L2 & L3VPNers, We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existing charters. There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. Ben (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Thu Nov 25 03:49:44 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0E228C0F3; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:49:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.954 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.555, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kjYVR3mOmmDn; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:49:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1A13A6AC3; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:49:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from 212.44.61.29.ip.redstone-isp.net ([212.44.61.29] helo=[192.168.100.111]) by mail11.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLaLb-0001sc-1P; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:50:43 +0000 Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <14584D6EE26B314187A4F68BA206060005DB5053@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:50:41 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <56ED0993-7340-41E6-808C-F8F3DFF4D586@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14584D6EE26B314187A4F68BA206060005DB5053@ASHEVS008.mcilink.com> To: "Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:49:44 -0000 Nick, Just to clarify one thing inline below On 24 Nov 2010, at 19:22, Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno) wrote: > In the Beijing meeting, we discussed this and there seemed to be favor > in not merging the two groups, for now. Given the backlog of work = items > in L2VPN, and the upcoming recharter, the idea of a list-only group > seemed to be the favored option. We are not ignoring what was said during the meeting in Beijing (that is = recorded in the minutes and will be taken into account) but as you know = we also need to have the discussion on the mailing list to give everyone = the chance to express their views. Ben > I would support this approach over > recombining the groups. >=20 > With that said, if there are L3VPN items which need to be addressed in = a > meeting environment, we could certainly look at accommodating on the > L2VPN agenda if there is room. >=20 > Thanks, > Nick >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Ben Niven-Jenkins > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 4:26 AM > To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? >=20 > L2 & L3VPNers, >=20 > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the > L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. >=20 > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with = a > charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both > existing charters. >=20 > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and > we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 >=20 > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an > opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a > comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to = send > them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the > chairs. >=20 > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) >=20 >=20 From wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Nov 25 05:57:11 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5043128C11C; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:57:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.384 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.335, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IO6kIhgtR7fY; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:57:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DBA628C11A; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:57:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id oAPDvbvA016502 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:58:09 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.43]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:57:57 +0100 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" To: Ben Niven-Jenkins , "l3vpn@ietf.org" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:57:56 +0100 Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuLwhIWR8/LRjiTRnG+ABD27Q+KewAEeZgw Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.80 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:57:11 -0000 My take: - L2VPN has enough work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, EVPN.= On top there is still a lot of outstanding activities - L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with milestones d= efined which need to be delivered The Datacenter will have activities in both WG(s) with specifics for L3 (in= L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN WG), on top datacenter will also have work on o= ther WG. So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s). Cheers, Wim -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= en Niven-Jenkins Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26 To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? L2 & L3VPNers, We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN = & L3VPN WGs. The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a cha= rter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existin= g charters. There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd= like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion = (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you m= ade at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to = the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. Ben (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From loa@pi.nu Thu Nov 25 06:10:45 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F4028C120; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:10:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bLSa4ttImNgw; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:10:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pi.nu (mail.pi.nu [194.71.127.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A4F28C10D; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:10:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [2.71.37.94] (unknown [2.71.37.94]) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by mail.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 09456514021; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:11:27 +0100 (CET) References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8B117) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Message-Id: <1F838544-B966-4EF3-9688-1D795BAA044C@pi.nu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8B117) From: "Loa@pi.nu" Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:11:22 +0100 To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:10:45 -0000 Has it been considered starting a data center wg? /Loa Skickat fr=C3=A5n min iPhone 25 nov 2010 kl. 14:57 skrev "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" : > My take: >=20 > - L2VPN has enough work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, EVPN= . On top there is still a lot of outstanding activities > - L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with milestones d= efined which need to be delivered >=20 > The Datacenter will have activities in both WG(s) with specifics for L3 (i= n L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN WG), on top datacenter will also have work on o= ther WG. >=20 > So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s). >=20 > Cheers, > Wim >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= en Niven-Jenkins > Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26 > To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? >=20 > L2 & L3VPNers, >=20 > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN= & L3VPN WGs. >=20 > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a ch= arter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existin= g charters. >=20 > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'= d like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 >=20 > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion= (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you m= ade at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to t= he L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. >=20 > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) >=20 >=20 From lieven.levrau@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Nov 25 06:15:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021DE28C110; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:15:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-QgXAbFkPyn; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:15:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86BC3A6A38; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:15:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id oAPEGqgQ030985 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:16:54 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:16:54 +0100 From: "LEVRAU, LIEVEN (LIEVEN)" To: "Loa@pi.nu" , "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:16:47 +0100 Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuMqsDIhTDmUrljTrWR3jeZ6+VJ5QAAAk+g Message-ID: References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1F838544-B966-4EF3-9688-1D795BAA044C@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <1F838544-B966-4EF3-9688-1D795BAA044C@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.13 Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:15:56 -0000 SSB3b3VsZCBzdWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgdGhhdCBpcyB0aGUgcmlnaHQgd2F5IHRvIGRvIC0gQSBjbG91 ZCBvciBkYXRhIGNlbnRlciB3Zw0KQW5kIHRoYXQgd2cgc2hvdWxkIGNvbnN1bHQgYW5kIGludHJv ZHVjZSB0aGUgcGFydGljdWxhciBpc3N1ZXMgaW4gdGhlaXIgcmVzcGVjdGl2ZSB3ZyAoaW4gZWl0 aGVyIEwyIG9yIEwzKQ0KRWFjaCB0ZWNobm8gKGwyIGFuZCBsMykgaGFzIGl0cyBwYXJ0aWN1bGFy aXRpZXMgYW5kIEkgZG9u4oCZdCB0aGluayB0aGF0IHRoZXkgdGhlc2UgbWF0Y2guDQoNCkkgYW0g bm90IGZvciB0aGUgbWVyZ2UuDQoNCi4vDQpMaWV2ZW4NCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdl LS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGwzdnBuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpsM3Zwbi1ib3VuY2Vz QGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgTG9hQHBpLm51DQpTZW50OiAyNSBOb3ZlbWJlciAyMDEw IDE1OjExDQpUbzogSGVuZGVyaWNreCwgV2ltIChXaW0pDQpDYzogbDJ2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmc7IGwz dnBuQGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogTWVyZ2luZyBMMlZQTiAmIEwzVlBOPw0KDQpIYXMg aXQgYmVlbiBjb25zaWRlcmVkIHN0YXJ0aW5nIGEgZGF0YSBjZW50ZXIgd2c/DQoNCg0KL0xvYQ0K DQpTa2lja2F0IGZyw6VuIG1pbiBpUGhvbmUNCg0KMjUgbm92IDIwMTAga2wuIDE0OjU3IHNrcmV2 ICJIZW5kZXJpY2t4LCBXaW0gKFdpbSkiIDx3aW0uaGVuZGVyaWNreEBhbGNhdGVsLWx1Y2VudC5j b20+Og0KDQo+IE15IHRha2U6DQo+IA0KPiAtIEwyVlBOIGhhcyBlbm91Z2ggd29yayB0byBkbyB3 aGljaCBpcyBub3QgeWV0IG9uIHRoZSBjaGFydGVyOiBFVFJFRSwgRVZQTi4gT24gdG9wIHRoZXJl IGlzIHN0aWxsIGEgbG90IG9mIG91dHN0YW5kaW5nIGFjdGl2aXRpZXMNCj4gLSBMM1ZQTiBpcyBs ZXNzIHBhY2tlZCBzbyBmYXIsIGJ1dCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgZGVsaXZlcmFibGVzIHdpdGggbWlsZXN0 b25lcyBkZWZpbmVkIHdoaWNoIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgZGVsaXZlcmVkDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgRGF0YWNl bnRlciB3aWxsIGhhdmUgYWN0aXZpdGllcyBpbiBib3RoIFdHKHMpIHdpdGggc3BlY2lmaWNzIGZv ciBMMyAoaW4gTDNWUE4gV0cpIGFuZCBMMiAoaW4gTDJWUE4gV0cpLCBvbiB0b3AgZGF0YWNlbnRl ciB3aWxsIGFsc28gaGF2ZSB3b3JrIG9uIG90aGVyIFdHLg0KPiANCj4gU28gaW4gZXNzZW5jZSBJ IHdvdWxkIG5vdCByZWNvbW1lbmQgbWVyZ2luZyB0aGUgV0cocykuDQo+IA0KPiBDaGVlcnMsDQo+ IFdpbQ0KPiANCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogbDN2cG4tYm91 bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmwzdnBuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBP ZiBCZW4gTml2ZW4tSmVua2lucw0KPiBTZW50OiB3b2Vuc2RhZyAyNCBub3ZlbWJlciAyMDEwIDEx OjI2DQo+IFRvOiBsM3ZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZzsgbDJ2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogTWVy Z2luZyBMMlZQTiAmIEwzVlBOPw0KPiANCj4gTDIgJiBMM1ZQTmVycywNCj4gDQo+IFdlIGhhZCBk aXNjdXNzaW9ucyBpbiBCZWlqaW5nIGluIGJvdGggV0dzIG9uIHRoZSBpZGVhIG9mIG1lcmdpbmcg dGhlIEwyVlBOICYgTDNWUE4gV0dzLg0KPiANCj4gVGhlIHByb3Bvc2FsIHdhcyB0byBtZXJnZSB0 aGUgTDJWUE4gJiBMM1ZQTiBXR3MgaW50byBhIHNpbmdsZSBXRyB3aXRoIGEgY2hhcnRlciB0aGF0 IHdvdWxkIGJlIChmb2xsb3dpbmcgd29yZHNtaXRoaW5nKSB0aGUgY29tYmluYXRpb24gb2YgYm90 aCBleGlzdGluZyBjaGFydGVycy4NCj4gDQo+IFRoZXJlIHdlcmUgc2V2ZXJhbCBwZW9wbGUgd2hv IGV4cHJlc3NlZCBvcGluaW9ucyBhdCB0aGUgbWljcm9waG9uZSBhbmQgd2UnZCBsaWtlIHRvIHNv bGljaXQgZnVydGhlciBmZWVkYmFjayBvbiBib3RoIFdHIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdHMuIA0KPiANCj4g V2UgYXJlIHN0aWxsIGdhdGhlcmluZyBmZWVkYmFjayBvbiB0aGUgcHJvcG9zYWwsIHNvIGlmIHlv dSBoYXZlIGFuIG9waW5pb24gKGZvciBvciBhZ2FpbnN0KSBtZXJnaW5nIHRoZSBXR3Mgb3IgeW91 J2QgbGlrZSB0byBleHBhbmQgb24gYSBjb21tZW50IHlvdSBtYWRlIGF0IHRoZSBtaWNyb3Bob25l IGluIEJlaWppbmcgd2UnZCBlbmNvdXJhZ2UgeW91IHRvIHNlbmQgdGhlbSBlaXRoZXIgdG8gdGhl IEwyVlBOICYgTDNWUE4gbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0cyBvciBwcml2YXRlbHkgdG8gdGhlIGNoYWlycy4N Cj4gDQo+IEJlbg0KPiAob24gYmVoYWxmIG9mIHRoZSBMMitMM1ZQTiBjaGFpcnMpDQo+IA0KPiAN Cg== From Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Thu Nov 25 07:32:59 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015E428C147; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:32:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.865 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.466, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WweffydajVat; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:32:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com [147.234.242.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6A828C13D; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:32:57 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 93eaf2e7-b7c63ae00000248b-2f-4cee81e7bede Received: from ilptexch01.ecitele.com ( [172.31.244.40]) by ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 7A.F8.09355.7E18EEC4; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:33:59 +0200 (IST) Received: from ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com ([147.234.244.213]) by ilptexch01.ecitele.com ([172.31.244.40]) with mapi; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:33:57 +0200 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:35:03 +0200 Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuLwgyesBeBvG14R36jWC7cHL/FZQA9D2hg Message-ID: References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:32:59 -0000 Ben and all, I do not support the merge. Regards, Sasha -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= en Niven-Jenkins Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:26 PM To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? L2 & L3VPNers, We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN = & L3VPN WGs. The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a cha= rter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existin= g charters. There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd= like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion = (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you m= ade at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to = the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. Ben (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From loa@pi.nu Thu Nov 25 07:41:13 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDB228C177; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:41:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMx46yUcEwt1; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:41:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pi.nu (mail.pi.nu [194.71.127.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E9C28C16B; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:40:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [2.71.37.94] (unknown [2.71.37.94]) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by mail.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7CF82514021; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:40:29 +0100 (CET) References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1F838544-B966-4EF3-9688-1D795BAA044C@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8B117) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8B117) From: "Loa@pi.nu" Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:40:24 +0100 To: "LEVRAU, LIEVEN (LIEVEN)" Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:41:13 -0000 All, I've not made up my mind, but would like to see more alternatives than just m= erging two working groups.=20 /Loa Skickat fr=C3=A5n min iPhone 25 nov 2010 kl. 15:16 skrev "LEVRAU, LIEVEN (LIEVEN)" : > I would suggest that that is the right way to do - A cloud or data center w= g > And that wg should consult and introduce the particular issues in their re= spective wg (in either L2 or L3) > Each techno (l2 and l3) has its particularities and I don=E2=80=99t think t= hat they these match. >=20 > I am not for the merge. >=20 > ./ > Lieven >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of L= oa@pi.nu > Sent: 25 November 2010 15:11 > To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; l3vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? >=20 > Has it been considered starting a data center wg? >=20 >=20 > /Loa >=20 > Skickat fr=C3=A5n min iPhone >=20 > 25 nov 2010 kl. 14:57 skrev "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" : >=20 >> My take: >>=20 >> - L2VPN has enough work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, EVP= N. On top there is still a lot of outstanding activities >> - L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with milestones= defined which need to be delivered >>=20 >> The Datacenter will have activities in both WG(s) with specifics for L3 (= in L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN WG), on top datacenter will also have work on o= ther WG. >>=20 >> So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s). >>=20 >> Cheers, >> Wim >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of= Ben Niven-Jenkins >> Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26 >> To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? >>=20 >> L2 & L3VPNers, >>=20 >> We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VP= N & L3VPN WGs. >>=20 >> The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a c= harter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existi= ng charters. >>=20 >> There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we= 'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 >>=20 >> We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinio= n (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you m= ade at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to t= he L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. >>=20 >> Ben >> (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) >>=20 >>=20 From pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com Thu Nov 25 08:07:29 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7944E3A6941; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:07:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V-L+19+FZtLn; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:07:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A40928C11D; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:07:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-250-11-31.lucent.com [135.250.11.31]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id oAPG8OaM008816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:08:27 -0600 (CST) Received: from INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com (inbansxchhub03.in.alcatel-lucent.com [135.250.12.80]) by inbansmailrelay1.in.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id oAPG8NjO029438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Nov 2010 21:38:24 +0530 Received: from INBANSXCHMBSA3.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.53]) by INBANSXCHHUB03.in.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.250.12.80]) with mapi; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 21:38:23 +0530 From: "Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal)" To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" , Ben Niven-Jenkins , "l3vpn@ietf.org" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 21:38:10 +0530 Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuLwhIWR8/LRjiTRnG+ABD27Q+KewAEeZgwADm59cA= Message-ID: References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.250.11.31 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:15:10 -0800 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:07:29 -0000 I wouldn't recommend merging the WG(s) for same reasons. Thanks, Pranjal -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of H= enderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 5:58 AM To: Ben Niven-Jenkins; l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? My take: - L2VPN has enough work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, EVPN.= On top there is still a lot of outstanding activities - L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with milestones d= efined which need to be delivered The Datacenter will have activities in both WG(s) with specifics for L3 (in= L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN WG), on top datacenter will also have work on o= ther WG. So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s). Cheers, Wim -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= en Niven-Jenkins Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26 To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? L2 & L3VPNers, We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN = & L3VPN WGs. The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a cha= rter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existin= g charters. There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd= like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion = (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you m= ade at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to = the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. Ben (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From mn1921@att.com Thu Nov 25 08:30:40 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3450728C16B; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:30:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uffYDALEigzT; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:30:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail167.messagelabs.com (mail167.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E3628C15D; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:30:38 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: mn1921@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1290702699!29110511!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.146] Received: (qmail 1810 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2010 16:31:40 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.146) by server-5.tower-167.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Nov 2010 16:31:40 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oAPGUvAh005299; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:30:57 -0500 Received: from misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [144.155.43.107]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oAPGUrHT005278; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:30:53 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 11:31:32 -0500 Message-ID: <2F1DE4DFCFF32144B771BD2C246E6A20077E7324@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com> In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuLwhIbadAOoLMfRwOKE6aaaMqnhwA+gqNA References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H (ATTLABS)" To: "Ben Niven-Jenkins" , , X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:30:40 -0000 There is still few work items/drafts in l3vpn WG that need to be worked. Those related to MVPN are, for example.: - Bidirectional P-tunnels (draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir-02) - PE-PE PIM without MI-PMSI (draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-mspmsi-07) - S-PMSI Wild Card Selectors (draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-wildcards-01) - MVPN extranets (draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-extranet-01) All those items are important for the evolution of MVPN.=20 This does not seem to be a "lightweight" load and it makes more sense to finish this work under l3vpn WG umbrella than moving it to l2vpn WG.=20 Maria > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Ben Niven-Jenkins > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:26 AM > To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? >=20 > L2 & L3VPNers, >=20 > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the > L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. >=20 > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a > charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both > existing charters. >=20 > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and > we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. >=20 > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an > opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a > comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to > send them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the > chairs. >=20 > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) >=20 From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Thu Nov 25 16:53:07 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E687C3A6AEC; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:53:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.946 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C7cfw5Vakt+Y; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2704128C0CE; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 205951447621203; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:50:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.32.0.74] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 52528.3411897620; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:49:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse3.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id oAQ0s6vP067136; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:54:06 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: l2vpn@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:53:05 +0800 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2010-11-26 08:53:55, Serialize by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2010-11-26 08:53:55, Serialize complete at 2010-11-26 08:53:55, S/MIME Sign failed at 2010-11-26 08:53:55: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2010-11-26 08:54:00, Serialize complete at 2010-11-26 08:54:00 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0004EFED482577E7_=" X-MAIL: mse3.zte.com.cn oAQ0s6vP067136 Cc: josh.rogers@twcable.com X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:53:08 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0004EFED482577E7_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I would not support the merge for the reason of the sharing technique, but would support merge for less work issue in L3VPN WG. Lizhong > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:04:31 -0500 > From: "Rogers, Josh" > Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? > To: Ben Niven-Jenkins > Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" > > Message-ID: <07BF66EB-6FAB-49C6-921D-8FDA524F1BC7@twcable.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I believe that the benefit for having them separated is work output > by the groups is clearly purposed for either a L2VPN or L3VPN > application. Just because the underlying technologies are the same, > it is not safe to assume it is used the same, or the application > will have the same requirements. I don't think a merge will > necessarily undo this benefit, but if we are not purposed in this > regard, the result will be documents that are unclear, vague, or > assuming (one application or the other), which is not good. > > I support the merge if the charter were to include purposing l2vpn > specific, l3vpn specific, and more general initiatives that may > include both applications, and intent to clearly define what > application(s) each document applies to, and how it applies. > > -Josh > > On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:26 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > > > L2 & L3VPNers, > > > > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging > the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. > > > > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG > with a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the > combination of both existing charters. > > > > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone > and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. > > > > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an > opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on > a comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you > to send them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately > to the chairs. > > > > Ben > > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 0004EFED482577E7_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
I would not support the merge for the reason of the sharing technique, but would support merge for less work issue in L3VPN WG.
Lizhong

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:04:31 -0500
> From: "Rogers, Josh" <josh.rogers@twcable.com>
> Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN?
> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
> Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, "l3vpn@ietf.org"
>    <l3vpn@ietf.org>
> Message-ID: <07BF66EB-6FAB-49C6-921D-8FDA524F1BC7@twcable.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I believe that the benefit for having them separated is work output
> by the groups is clearly purposed for either a L2VPN or L3VPN
> application.  Just because the underlying technologies are the same,
> it is not safe to assume it is used the same, or the application
> will have the same requirements.   I don't think a merge will
> necessarily undo this benefit, but if we are not purposed in this
> regard, the result will be documents that are unclear, vague, or
> assuming (one application or the other), which is not good.
>
> I support the merge if the charter were to include purposing l2vpn
> specific, l3vpn specific, and more general initiatives that may
> include both applications, and intent to clearly define what
> application(s) each document applies to, and how it applies.
>
> -Josh
>
> On Nov 24, 2010, at 4:26 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
>
> > L2 & L3VPNers,
> >
> > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging
> the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs.
> >
> > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG
> with a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the
> combination of both existing charters.
> >
> > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone
> and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.
> >
> > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an
> opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on
> a comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you
> to send them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately
> to the chairs.
> >
> > Ben
> > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs)
> >
> >
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 0004EFED482577E7_=-- From tme@americafree.tv Sat Nov 27 10:36:11 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5546728C0D7; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:36:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1bIhI+CcTEeM; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:36:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.americafree.tv (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FD73A6983; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:36:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rossini.americafree.tv [63.105.122.34]) by mail.americafree.tv (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0B79511CBA; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:37:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Marshall Eubanks In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:37:14 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7F867002-E6F8-42CE-9F4C-F2AB2CFC949A@americafree.tv> References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <1F838544-B966-4EF3-9688-1D795BAA044C@pi.nu> To: "LEVRAU, LIEVEN (LIEVEN)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 18:36:11 -0000 On Nov 25, 2010, at 9:16 AM, LEVRAU, LIEVEN (LIEVEN) wrote: > I would suggest that that is the right way to do - A cloud or data = center wg There are many applications and issues with L3VPNs that have nothing to = do with clouds, so IMO that should be a separate effort. Regards Marshall > And that wg should consult and introduce the particular issues in = their respective wg (in either L2 or L3) > Each techno (l2 and l3) has its particularities and I don=92t think = that they these match. >=20 > I am not for the merge. >=20 > ./ > Lieven >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Loa@pi.nu > Sent: 25 November 2010 15:11 > To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; l3vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? >=20 > Has it been considered starting a data center wg? >=20 >=20 > /Loa >=20 > Skickat fr=E5n min iPhone >=20 > 25 nov 2010 kl. 14:57 skrev "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" = : >=20 >> My take: >>=20 >> - L2VPN has enough work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, = EVPN. On top there is still a lot of outstanding activities >> - L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with = milestones defined which need to be delivered >>=20 >> The Datacenter will have activities in both WG(s) with specifics for = L3 (in L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN WG), on top datacenter will also have = work on other WG. >>=20 >> So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s). >>=20 >> Cheers, >> Wim >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins >> Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26 >> To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org >> Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? >>=20 >> L2 & L3VPNers, >>=20 >> We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the = L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. >>=20 >> The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with = a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both = existing charters. >>=20 >> There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone = and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 >>=20 >> We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an = opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a = comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send = them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the = chairs. >>=20 >> Ben >> (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) >>=20 >>=20 From simon.delord@gmail.com Thu Nov 25 16:22:52 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DC43A6AEB; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:22:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id amGh0JN97gil; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:22:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AEF3A69B5; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:22:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so1223099fxm.31 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:23:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=sWEIDhvrGFTyShIVAG6liEBV457eMT44/22S5Sy6T0g=; b=oV3Y/yFOfVIGIsvIeVdAZKF9UMdtaBnbsPZ3qcBT3msLCzxoIqOwprV8sfVnOPJ2Fx 89PCmK0EXrCjsXdv4Mp9iZmorje369CI9vfkPl3XnQkCqCeINjfyRj9DeMKe3eCStEWh /90dZMC/oVi0mzPscfl/nuV6m8WshNkPY/kIk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=JvGTYDO7Q3EQOIUf8hdkjsWDDYP5UDLid5eWYo57w8Qh/S5YjQZu7epdYQqCEJ4RMY InO23Z3kdI0MpqX//cM4Os1D5ZYOhvaCs7AT11vCY32k+t4mLvJaZZ8J3gkmk9O76MQ4 f8NwFQYnDaNnp8awDfj239gxAy5DcPunalT20= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.101.196 with SMTP id d4mr1416426fao.23.1290731032692; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:23:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.117.19 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:23:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:23:52 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? From: Simon Delord To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" , "l3vpn@ietf.org" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3054ac29b447b50495e9bc82 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:58:55 -0800 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:22:52 -0000 --20cf3054ac29b447b50495e9bc82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'm not in favour of merging L2VPN and L3VPN together. cheers, Simon 2010/11/25 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > My take: > > - L2VPN has enough work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, EVPN. > On top there is still a lot of outstanding activities > - L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with milestones > defined which need to be delivered > > The Datacenter will have activities in both WG(s) with specifics for L3 (in > L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN WG), on top datacenter will also have work on > other WG. > > So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s). > > Cheers, > Wim > > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Ben Niven-Jenkins > Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26 > To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? > > L2 & L3VPNers, > > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN > & L3VPN WGs. > > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a > charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both > existing charters. > > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd > like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. > > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion > (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you > made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to > the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. > > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) > > > --20cf3054ac29b447b50495e9bc82 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not in favour of merging L2VPN and L3VPN together.
cheers,
Simon

2010/11/25 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) <wim.henderickx@= alcatel-lucent.com>
My take:

- L2VPN has enou= gh work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, EVPN. On top there is= still a lot of outstanding activities
- L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with milestones d= efined which need to be delivered

The Datacenter will have activitie= s in both WG(s) with specifics for L3 (in L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN WG), o= n top datacenter will also have work on other WG.

So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s).

Cheers,Wim

-----Original Message-----
From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Niv= en-Jenkins
Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26
To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN?

L2 & L3VPNers,

We had discussions in Beijing i= n both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs.

The pro= posal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a charte= r that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existing c= harters.

There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and = we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.

= We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion = (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment y= ou made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them ei= ther to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs.

Ben
(on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs)



--20cf3054ac29b447b50495e9bc82-- From raymond.key@hotmail.com Sat Nov 27 13:11:42 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9F628C0D7; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:11:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zo94NM+xf0Ng; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from snt0-omc4-s34.snt0.hotmail.com (snt0-omc4-s34.snt0.hotmail.com [65.55.90.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FC5E28C0D6; Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from SNT123-W1 ([65.55.90.200]) by snt0-omc4-s34.snt0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:12:47 -0800 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_c16160bb-f7d9-49a2-8f6e-ef0ec84b36a7_" X-Originating-IP: [122.107.201.50] From: Raymond Key Sender: To: Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:12:47 +1100 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2010 21:12:47.0317 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7375050:01CB8E77] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:01:21 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:11:42 -0000 --_c16160bb-f7d9-49a2-8f6e-ef0ec84b36a7_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ben=2C =20 I am against merging the L2VPN and L3VPN working groups=2C reasons similar = to those raised by Wim and Lieven. Best regards=2C Raymond Key =20 =20 > From: ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk > Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? > Date: Wed=2C 24 Nov 2010 10:26:15 +0000 > To: l3vpn@ietf.org=3B l2vpn@ietf.org >=20 > L2 & L3VPNers=2C >=20 > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VP= N & L3VPN WGs. >=20 > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a c= harter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both exist= ing charters. >=20 > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we= 'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 >=20 > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal=2C so if you have an opin= ion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment y= ou made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either= to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. >=20 > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) >=20 >=20 = --_c16160bb-f7d9-49a2-8f6e-ef0ec84b36a7_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ben=2C
 =3B
I am against =3Bmerging the L2VPN and L3VPN working groups=2C reasons s= imilar to =3Bthose raised by Wim and Lieven.

Best regards=2C
Raymond Key
 =3B
 =3B
>=3B From: ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk
>=3B Subject: Merging L2VPN &= =3B L3VPN?
>=3B Date: Wed=2C 24 Nov 2010 10:26:15 +0000
>=3B To: = l3vpn@ietf.org=3B l2vpn@ietf.org
>=3B
>=3B L2 &=3B L3VPNers= =2C
>=3B
>=3B We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the i= dea of merging the L2VPN &=3B L3VPN WGs.
>=3B
>=3B The propos= al was to merge the L2VPN &=3B L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a charter= that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existing ch= arters.
>=3B
>=3B There were several people who expressed opinio= ns at the microphone and we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG m= ailing lists.
>=3B
>=3B We are still gathering feedback on the = proposal=2C so if you have an opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or y= ou'd like to expand on a comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd= encourage you to send them either to the L2VPN &=3B L3VPN mailing lists= or privately to the chairs.
>=3B
>=3B Ben
>=3B (on behalf = of the L2+L3VPN chairs)
>=3B
>=3B
= --_c16160bb-f7d9-49a2-8f6e-ef0ec84b36a7_-- From lucyyong@huawei.com Sun Nov 28 08:12:58 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D876028C10C; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:12:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.705 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04oPF-LpxDz0; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:12:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D801128C10A; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LCL00IZTRR7UO@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:13:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LCL00KL0RR6UB@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:13:55 +0800 (CST) Received: from y736742 (cpe-70-123-96-134.tx.res.rr.com [70.123.96.134]) by szxml02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LCL00C8LRR2LR@szxml02-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:13:54 +0800 (CST) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:13:50 -0600 From: Yong Lucy Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? In-reply-to: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> To: "'Henderickx, Wim (Wim)'" , 'Ben Niven-Jenkins' , l3vpn@ietf.org, l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <012901cb8f17$43318650$6901a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuLwhIWR8/LRjiTRnG+ABD27Q+KewAEeZgwANCOnSA= References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:13:28 -0800 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:12:59 -0000 I agree with Wim's analysis and do not support the merge. Lucy > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 7:58 AM > To: Ben Niven-Jenkins; l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? > > My take: > > - L2VPN has enough work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, EVPN. > On top there is still a lot of outstanding activities > - L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with milestones > defined which need to be delivered > > The Datacenter will have activities in both WG(s) with specifics for L3 > (in L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN WG), on top datacenter will also have work > on other WG. > > So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s). > > Cheers, > Wim > > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Ben Niven-Jenkins > Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26 > To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? > > L2 & L3VPNers, > > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN > & L3VPN WGs. > > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a > charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both > existing charters. > > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and > we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. > > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion > (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you > made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either > to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. > > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From Manuel.Paul@telekom.de Sun Nov 28 11:40:29 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A81F28C119; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:40:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FsYGftfQtrq3; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:40:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E918A28C11A; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:40:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from s4de9jsaanm.mgb.telekom.de (HELO S4DE9JSAANM.ost.t-com.de) ([10.125.177.122]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2010 20:40:23 +0100 Received: from S4DE9JSAANI.ost.t-com.de ([10.125.177.223]) by S4DE9JSAANM.ost.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 28 Nov 2010 20:40:23 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 20:39:31 +0100 Message-ID: <40FB0FFB97588246A1BEFB05759DC8A004F246DD@S4DE9JSAANI.ost.t-com.de> In-Reply-To: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuLwhIWR8/LRjiTRnG+ABD27Q+KewAEeZgwANeiB3A= References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Nov 2010 19:40:23.0365 (UTC) FILETIME=[192D1F50:01CB8F34] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:47:43 -0800 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:40:29 -0000 RGVhciBCZW4sDQoNCkkgYWxzbyBjb25jdXIgd2l0aCBXaW0ncyByZWFzb25pbmcgYW5kIGFtIG5v dCBpbiBmYXZvdXIgb2YgKHJlLSltZXJnaW5nIGJvdGggZ3JvdXBzIGF0IHRoaXMgcG9pbnQuDQoN ClJlZ2FyZGluZyB0aGUgZGF0YWNlbnRlciBzdHVmZiwgbWF5IGl0IGJlIHdvcnRoIHRvIGtlZXAg YW4gZXllIG9uIHRoZSBhY3Rpdml0aWVzIGdvaW5nIG9uIGZvciBBUk1ELCB0byBwb3RlbnRpYWxs eSBnYXRoZXIgYW5kIGRpcmVjdCBleHBlcnRpc2U/DQoNCkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcywgDQpNYW51ZWwg DQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogbDJ2cG4tYm91bmNlc0Bp ZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmwydnBuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZg0KPiBI ZW5kZXJpY2t4LCBXaW0gKFdpbSkNCj4gU2VudDogVGh1cnNkYXksIE5vdmVtYmVyIDI1LCAyMDEw IDI6NTggUE0NCj4gVG86IEJlbiBOaXZlbi1KZW5raW5zOyBsM3ZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZzsgbDJ2cG5A aWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUkU6IE1lcmdpbmcgTDJWUE4gJiBMM1ZQTj8NCj4gDQo+IE15 IHRha2U6DQo+IA0KPiAtIEwyVlBOIGhhcyBlbm91Z2ggd29yayB0byBkbyB3aGljaCBpcyBub3Qg eWV0IG9uIHRoZSBjaGFydGVyOiBFVFJFRSwgRVZQTi4NCj4gT24gdG9wIHRoZXJlIGlzIHN0aWxs IGEgbG90IG9mIG91dHN0YW5kaW5nIGFjdGl2aXRpZXMNCj4gLSBMM1ZQTiBpcyBsZXNzIHBhY2tl ZCBzbyBmYXIsIGJ1dCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgZGVsaXZlcmFibGVzIHdpdGggbWlsZXN0b25lcw0KPiBk ZWZpbmVkIHdoaWNoIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgZGVsaXZlcmVkDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgRGF0YWNlbnRlciB3 aWxsIGhhdmUgYWN0aXZpdGllcyBpbiBib3RoIFdHKHMpIHdpdGggc3BlY2lmaWNzIGZvciBMMw0K PiAoaW4gTDNWUE4gV0cpIGFuZCBMMiAoaW4gTDJWUE4gV0cpLCBvbiB0b3AgZGF0YWNlbnRlciB3 aWxsIGFsc28gaGF2ZSB3b3JrDQo+IG9uIG90aGVyIFdHLg0KPiANCj4gU28gaW4gZXNzZW5jZSBJ IHdvdWxkIG5vdCByZWNvbW1lbmQgbWVyZ2luZyB0aGUgV0cocykuDQo+IA0KPiBDaGVlcnMsDQo+ IFdpbQ0KPiANCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogbDN2cG4tYm91 bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOmwzdnBuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBP Zg0KPiBCZW4gTml2ZW4tSmVua2lucw0KPiBTZW50OiB3b2Vuc2RhZyAyNCBub3ZlbWJlciAyMDEw IDExOjI2DQo+IFRvOiBsM3ZwbkBpZXRmLm9yZzsgbDJ2cG5AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDog TWVyZ2luZyBMMlZQTiAmIEwzVlBOPw0KPiANCj4gTDIgJiBMM1ZQTmVycywNCj4gDQo+IFdlIGhh ZCBkaXNjdXNzaW9ucyBpbiBCZWlqaW5nIGluIGJvdGggV0dzIG9uIHRoZSBpZGVhIG9mIG1lcmdp bmcgdGhlIEwyVlBODQo+ICYgTDNWUE4gV0dzLg0KPiANCj4gVGhlIHByb3Bvc2FsIHdhcyB0byBt ZXJnZSB0aGUgTDJWUE4gJiBMM1ZQTiBXR3MgaW50byBhIHNpbmdsZSBXRyB3aXRoIGENCj4gY2hh cnRlciB0aGF0IHdvdWxkIGJlIChmb2xsb3dpbmcgd29yZHNtaXRoaW5nKSB0aGUgY29tYmluYXRp b24gb2YgYm90aA0KPiBleGlzdGluZyBjaGFydGVycy4NCj4gDQo+IFRoZXJlIHdlcmUgc2V2ZXJh bCBwZW9wbGUgd2hvIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBvcGluaW9ucyBhdCB0aGUgbWljcm9waG9uZSBhbmQNCj4g d2UnZCBsaWtlIHRvIHNvbGljaXQgZnVydGhlciBmZWVkYmFjayBvbiBib3RoIFdHIG1haWxpbmcg bGlzdHMuDQo+IA0KPiBXZSBhcmUgc3RpbGwgZ2F0aGVyaW5nIGZlZWRiYWNrIG9uIHRoZSBwcm9w b3NhbCwgc28gaWYgeW91IGhhdmUgYW4gb3Bpbmlvbg0KPiAoZm9yIG9yIGFnYWluc3QpIG1lcmdp bmcgdGhlIFdHcyBvciB5b3UnZCBsaWtlIHRvIGV4cGFuZCBvbiBhIGNvbW1lbnQgeW91DQo+IG1h ZGUgYXQgdGhlIG1pY3JvcGhvbmUgaW4gQmVpamluZyB3ZSdkIGVuY291cmFnZSB5b3UgdG8gc2Vu ZCB0aGVtIGVpdGhlcg0KPiB0byB0aGUgTDJWUE4gJiBMM1ZQTiBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3RzIG9yIHBy aXZhdGVseSB0byB0aGUgY2hhaXJzLg0KPiANCj4gQmVuDQo+IChvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgdGhlIEwy K0wzVlBOIGNoYWlycykNCj4gDQoNCg== From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Sun Nov 28 15:26:05 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696C128C0EA; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:26:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3tz8EAaXVtGI; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:26:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12FF428B56A; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:26:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oASNRBxt001052 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:27:11 -0600 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.213]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:27:10 -0500 From: Jeff Tantsura To: Ben Niven-Jenkins , "l3vpn@ietf.org" , "l2vpn@ietf.org" Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:27:09 -0500 Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Topic: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Thread-Index: AcuLwgyT/qba2ncxTTamwH6TrseYGQDkVzgA Message-ID: <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF60A9F1F185E@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:26:05 -0000 Hi Ben, I'm against merging of 2 groups, the audience and end goals don't quite ove= rlap.=20 Regards, Jeff =20 -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of B= en Niven-Jenkins Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 02:26 To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? L2 & L3VPNers, We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN = & L3VPN WGs. The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a cha= rter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existin= g charters. There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd= like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion = (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you m= ade at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either to = the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. Ben (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Sun Nov 28 16:09:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F3628C0EC; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:09:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.766 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.367, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0gzqjRd8CmEw; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:09:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C5728C0E9; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:09:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (unknown [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9E51824BC3; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:11:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:11:02 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <08F64065-F046-47EA-A779-33B08CD73E48@lucidvision.com> References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:09:56 -0000 As I mentioned during the meetings ( and on the list in the past = ), I am for shutting down the L3VPN WG once the current bit of multicast work is done. There seems = to be nothing more to continue=20 working on here after the multicast work has finished. =20 I recognize the need to handle future data center work, but I do = not think splitting the work between L2 and L3 VPN is appropriate. I have similar comments about the = L2VPN WG and its exponentially=20 dwindling work load. Thus, I'd vote to discontinue both L2 and L3 WGs = and form a new WG for "VPNs".=20 However, not just "provider provisioned" VPNs, as that would not handle = all of the L2, "enterprise" or=20 "data center" use cases. --Tom > L2 & L3VPNers, >=20 > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the = L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. >=20 > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with = a charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both = existing charters. >=20 > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and = we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists.=20 >=20 > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an = opinion (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a = comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send = them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the = chairs. >=20 > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) >=20 >=20 >=20 From dongjie_dj@huawei.com Sun Nov 28 17:23:43 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D900D28C100; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:23:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.803 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.492, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQ0WdK4b18lA; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DF428C0F4; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:23:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LCM00G74H95UD@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:24:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LCM00BVYH9449@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:24:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from d65110 ([10.110.98.79]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LCM002UCH94A8@szxml06-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:24:40 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:24:41 +0800 From: Jie Dong Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? In-reply-to: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> To: "'Henderickx, Wim (Wim)'" , 'Ben Niven-Jenkins' , l3vpn@ietf.org, l2vpn@ietf.org Message-id: <025301cb8f64$32896dc0$979c4940$@com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-cn Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuLwhIWR8/LRjiTRnG+ABD27Q+KewAEeZgwAOPv4fA= References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:23:44 -0000 Not support merging at this point. Reasons similar to Wim's. Best Regards, Jie > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:58 PM > To: Ben Niven-Jenkins; l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? > > My take: > > - L2VPN has enough work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, EVPN. On top there is still a lot > of outstanding activities > - L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with milestones defined which need to be > delivered > > The Datacenter will have activities in both WG(s) with specifics for L3 (in L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN > WG), on top datacenter will also have work on other WG. > > So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s). > > Cheers, > Wim > > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Niven-Jenkins > Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26 > To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? > > L2 & L3VPNers, > > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs. > > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a charter that would be > (following wordsmithing) the combination of both existing charters. > > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and we'd like to solicit further > feedback on both WG mailing lists. > > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion (for or against) merging the > WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you > to send them either to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. > > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) From erosen@cisco.com Mon Nov 29 08:29:13 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C243A6C1E for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:29:13 -0800 (PST) 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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qX2QLba4Ebap for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:29:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3593A6C19 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:29:12 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,276,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="186928507" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Nov 2010 16:30:22 +0000 Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oATGUMNq002889; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:30:22 GMT Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oATGULb3023769; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:30:21 -0500 To: Yakov Rekhter Subject: Re: Discussing additional milestones that could be adopted by the WG? In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:21:47 -0800. <201011221821.oAMILlU93034@magenta.juniper.net> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:30:21 -0500 Message-ID: <23768.1291048221@erosen-linux> From: Eric Rosen Cc: l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:29:13 -0000 Yakov> The scope of work in support of mp2mp P-tunnels should be guided by Yakov> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations. That document was never intended as a guide to future work; certainly when it was adopted by the WG it was presented as establishing a particular set of features as mandatory; it was not presented as a restriction on future charter modifications. I do agree that any option that is mandated or recommended in that document is a valid topic for the WG to consider taking up. But I don't agree with the converse. From zengqing@huawei.com Tue Nov 30 23:14:39 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD4C3A6D00; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:14:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.131 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ngiYkG5-7x7E; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:14:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEBC3A6D19; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:12:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LCQ008YIMMTU0@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:11:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LCQ00J1UMMTMK@szxga04-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:11:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from z00129659 ([10.110.98.98]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LCQ00DVSMMTG8@szxml06-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:11:17 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:11:16 +0800 From: zengqing Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? In-reply-to: <40FB0FFB97588246A1BEFB05759DC8A004F246DD@S4DE9JSAANI.ost.t-com.de> To: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de, ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Message-id: <001201cb9126$f26fa960$d74efc20$@com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: zh-cn Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcuLwhIWR8/LRjiTRnG+ABD27Q+KewAEeZgwANeiB3AAfFXmAA== References: <123FA944-FA3F-47B6-A85B-286BD6E8A869@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D67172F092B@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <40FB0FFB97588246A1BEFB05759DC8A004F246DD@S4DE9JSAANI.ost.t-com.de> Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, l3vpn@ietf.org X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:14:40 -0000 Agree with Manuel, It may be worth to put the datacenter stuff related L2 and L3 to one place (such as the ARMD). Best Regards, Qing -----Original Message----- From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Manuel.Paul@telekom.de Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 3:40 AM To: ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; l3vpn@ietf.org Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? Dear Ben, I also concur with Wim's reasoning and am not in favour of (re-)merging both groups at this point. Regarding the datacenter stuff, may it be worth to keep an eye on the activities going on for ARMD, to potentially gather and direct expertise? Best Regards, Manuel > -----Original Message----- > From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:58 PM > To: Ben Niven-Jenkins; l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? > > My take: > > - L2VPN has enough work to do which is not yet on the charter: ETREE, EVPN. > On top there is still a lot of outstanding activities > - L3VPN is less packed so far, but there are deliverables with milestones > defined which need to be delivered > > The Datacenter will have activities in both WG(s) with specifics for L3 > (in L3VPN WG) and L2 (in L2VPN WG), on top datacenter will also have work > on other WG. > > So in essence I would not recommend merging the WG(s). > > Cheers, > Wim > > -----Original Message----- > From: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Ben Niven-Jenkins > Sent: woensdag 24 november 2010 11:26 > To: l3vpn@ietf.org; l2vpn@ietf.org > Subject: Merging L2VPN & L3VPN? > > L2 & L3VPNers, > > We had discussions in Beijing in both WGs on the idea of merging the L2VPN > & L3VPN WGs. > > The proposal was to merge the L2VPN & L3VPN WGs into a single WG with a > charter that would be (following wordsmithing) the combination of both > existing charters. > > There were several people who expressed opinions at the microphone and > we'd like to solicit further feedback on both WG mailing lists. > > We are still gathering feedback on the proposal, so if you have an opinion > (for or against) merging the WGs or you'd like to expand on a comment you > made at the microphone in Beijing we'd encourage you to send them either > to the L2VPN & L3VPN mailing lists or privately to the chairs. > > Ben > (on behalf of the L2+L3VPN chairs) >