Subject: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:38:06 -0800 (PST)

I support adoption of this draft by L3VPN and think it provides useful 
guidance.

-) ---------- Forwarded message ----------
-) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:11:28 -0500
-) From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
-) To: [email-masked]
-) Subject: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations
-) 
-) Folks,
-) 
-) Unless I hear an objection before COB Friday, this document will become
-) a WG draft.
-) 
-)                                       Ron
-)

---

From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:47:39 -0600

The draft is a very good start but there are still some outstanding
mandatory design aspects that need to be addressed: 
- support of non-static RP solutions like BSR. There are current large
MVPNs in SP network that use BSR
- support of "PIM-like" Anycast-RP by allowing multiple RP's to send
traffic in parallel 
- the recommended approach for a source PE to decide when to start
transmitting customer multicast traffic on a S-PMSI (namely, the source
PE waits for a pre-configured period of time) is not satisfactory in my
opinion. A different approach is proposed in
draft-mnapierala-mvpn-rev-03
- what is still missing in this draft as well as in RFC4834 is the
requirement to support PIM Bidir on CE-PE links. This requirement is
coming, e.g., from large financial firms for which using PIM-SM for
certain business critical applications does not scale. Not to mention
the SP :-))

Also, I would suggest that "co-located RP" recommendation is removed
from the document. Co-locating C-RP on PE should not be positioned as a
mandatory mechanism in MVPN, which this draft is addressing.

Sorry for late comments. I might have comments but wanted to send those
COB today. 

Maria 

-) Unless I hear an objection before COB Friday, this document will
become
-) a WG draft.
-) 
-)                                       Ron
-)

---

From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:20:07 -0600

Ron,
I would like that those issues are addressed before this draft is
adopted as a WG document since addressing those issues might impact
other recommendations stated in the draft.

Maria

-----Original Message-----
From: NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS 
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 4:48 PM
To: 'Ron Bonica'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations

Maria

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:46:26 -0800

Maria,

> other recommendations stated in the draft.

The issues you brought up below are outside the scope of
draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations, and therefore should not be
covered/addressed by draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations.

See in-line for more...

> MVPNs in SP network that use BSR

Please keep in mind that draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations is
about examining different proposed alternative mechanisms *as
documented in L3VPN WG documents*, not about specifying missing
pieces in these document.

I certainly agree that support for BSR has to be documented in one
of the L3VPN WG documents  (either draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast
or draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp).

> - support of "PIM-like" Anycast-RP by allowing multiple RP's to send

See my previous comment.

> draft-mnapierala-mvpn-rev-03

See my previous comment.

> certain business critical applications does not scale. Not to mention

See my previous comment. Also, draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations
is based on the requirements as specified in rfc4834.

If you want to change rfc4834, then this has to be discussed on its own,
and should not impact progress of draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations.

Yakov.

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:01:16 +0100

Hi Maria,

> MVPNs in SP network that use BSR

I agree (see reply to Eric) that our draft can mention BSR support.
There is only one currently proposed approach for BSR support, applying
to both the Full PIM peering approach and the BGP approach, so there
isn't that much to "compare", but the current requirement for MI-PMSI
for BSR support, even in the case where BGP is used for C-multicast
routing, has to be mentioned.

> - support of "PIM-like" Anycast-RP by allowing multiple RP's to send

The two points above would look to me as belonging to the mvpn
requirement document (RFC4834). 

The requirement for CE-PE bidir-PIM is actually already in that
document. The way of supporting bidir-PIM is definitely distinct in the
BGP approach and in the Full PIM peering approach, but it seems to me
that both should be able to support it. Do you think that
mvpn-consideration should discuss the relative advantage of the
different proposals for bidir-PIM support ?

For the other requirement, the better is probably to explain to solution
draft authors, what would be the need. Do you think that it could help
distinguish one of the proposed approaches ?

> draft-mnapierala-mvpn-rev-03

Is this something mvpn-consideration should talk about to help
distinguish a better approach among the proposed ones ?

> mandatory mechanism in MVPN, which this draft is addressing.

As I said earlier, mvpn-considerations does not at all push this feature
as mandatory at all.

> I might have comments but wanted to send those COB today. 

As I told you in Prague, your comments and contributions to this draft
are always welcome. 

Thanks,

-Thomas