Subject: [L1vpn] Draft minutes uploaded

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:25:07 +0100

Hi,

Please review the minutes at
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/minutes/l1vpn.html

Comments on the list or to the chairs.

Thanks,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:24:37 -0400

Hi Adrian,

some comments on the minutes:

1) With respect to:

>Adrian: If we're interested in the generic case, we should talk to 
>the OSPF working group
I believe Igor agreed and said that he would.

2) With respect to:

>Richard Rabbat: To ask the question again: do you need to upgrade 
>routers or is it nice to have optimization?
>Igor: You need to upgrade PEs and ABRs
>Lou: It is not a significant upgrade

I don't recall making this state, but I do recall saying something 
along the lines that "ABR upgrades aren't critical."

(Also this is all OBE, given the draft announced today.)

3) somewhere in there I also agreed with Yakov that we should 
progress both works and let the market decide.

(A clear decision point will come when it's time for implementation 
reports. - not stated in session.)

Lou

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:55:29 +0200

adrian

"- Dimitri: Please clarity the use of PCE
- Tomonori: As Adrian said, CCAMP has selected PCE. L1VPN is not requiring 
the use of PCE, but recognising the
          possiblity of using PCE for P&R"

but this is not what adrian could have said as i've never seen a statement 
such as L1VPN recognizes the possibility
of using PCE for P&R ... as there is no CE dual homing discussion since so 
far 

"Dimitri: It is a timing issue; They have today an OSPF environment and 
are willing to deploy quickly.
         BGP may be a solution in 4-5 years"

the last part of the message was "No doubt that BGP is a sensible 
approach, but if we have to base our timing 
by relying on IGP deployment experience, BGP may be the solution of choice 
in 4-5 years."

"Yakov: Update on the BGP-based auto-discovery
       We don't want to have a new AFI, we just need a new SAFI
       New format for l1vpn LNRI"

guess you mean NLRI

"Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
10/04/2006 15:25
Please respond to Adrian Farrel
 
        To:     <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        [L1vpn] Draft minutes uploaded

Hi,

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:26:04 +0100

Dimitri,

>>    the use of PCE, but recognising the possiblity of using PCE for P&R"
>
> such as L1VPN recognizes the possibility of using PCE for P&R ... as
> there is no CE dual homing discussion since so far

In fact, what I said is recorded pretty well in the minutes immediately
above. To remind you, I was speaking from the floor as CCAMP chair.

Adrian: CCAMP has a work item for multi-domain recovery.
        The L1VPN CE has a different visibility from the core network so
is like multi-domain.
        For the unprotected case in multi-domain, CCAMP found that PCE
would be a good approach
        I may expect a similar approach from CCAMP for protected
multi-domain.

You are right that L1VPN has not started work on P&R in any detail, and
functions like CE dual homing are beyond the scope of the Basic Model. So,
nothing is decided.

Tomonori stressed that L1VPN does not require the use of PCE. He is also
correct to say that we should recognise and discuss the possility of using
PCE to resolve questions of computational visiblity.

A

PS. Thanks for the other comments below.

---

From: Tomonori TAKEDA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:31:38 +0900

Dimitri, Adrian, all,

Thanks for clarification.

Yes, there is not much text on using PCE for L1VPNs, and L1VPNs have not
started P&R in detail.

My intension was we might want to start thinking about analysis of P&R
in L1VPNs, and if that is the case, PCE may come into play. It was not
my intention that PCE is *THE* solution for L1VPNs (analysis needed).
Also, I agree that CE-CE recovery is beyond the basic mode.

Thanks,
Tomonori

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:26:04 +0100