Subject: AW: Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs

From: "Leymann, Nicolai" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 16:37:03 +0200

Hi,
 
> a) Be reduced to a minimum number of possible alternatives, and
> b) Clearly spell out required and optional alternatives.
I think thats a major issue with this draft. The draft currently
defines various options and possibilities for the different points
(like encapsulation, routing, discovery, etc.). This also leaves
a wide variety of options for implementations. Therefore I see
the risk with implementations which are not interoperable (even
if those implementations are compliant with the draft). From my
point of view the draft should clearly state which options are 
required for an implementation.

  best regards

     Nic

---

From: Chatschik Bisdikian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:08:51 -0400

Dear Nic,

We totally share your view on this point. The draft has done an excellent 
job in consolidating multiple proposals for multicast VPNs under a 
coherent framework. To accelerate the progress along the path set by this 
framework, our proposal wants to place preferential weight to those 
portions of the framework that bear as much resemblance as possible to 
procedures that have been established and standardized for unicast 2547 
VPNs. In view of this, leveraging BGP (which is an integral part of 
multicast VPNs anyway) as much as possible seems quite a reasonable 
starting point.

Dr. Chatschik Bisdikian 
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
19 Skyline Drive, M/S 3S-B34
Hawthorne, NY 10532, USA
tel#: +1 914 784 7439 
fax#: +1 914 784 6205
e-mail: [email-masked]

"Leymann, Nicolai" <[email-masked]> 
10/04/2005 10:37 AM

To
Chatschik Bisdikian/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, [email-masked]
cc
[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject
AW: Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs

Hi,

  best regards

     Nic