Subject: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:00:56 +0100

Colleagues,

This e-mail is to start a poll on whether the L3VPN WG should adopt
draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document.

As there was some discussion in Anaheim on section 3.1 of the draft, we will
follow Eric's suggestion in his mail of 16th April (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/current/msg02664.html).

Therefore please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to this
message or e-mailing the WG chairs privately with one of the following three
options:

1) Yes/Support for the entire of draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 to be
adopted as a L3VPN WG document.

2) Yes/Support for draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 to be adopted as a
WG document provided section 3.1 is removed.

3) No/Do not support draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 being adopted as
a WG document at all.

Please send your responses by the end of May 9th PST.

Ben

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:07:52 -0400

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/current/msg02664.html).

Note that this is

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/current/msg02664.html

My email reader doesn't work with the original link as it includes the  
")" at the end.

Marshall

---

From: "William Zayas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:39:49 -0400

Yes/Support.

William.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Marshall Eubanks
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN
WG document

On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:00 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As there was some discussion in Anaheim on section 3.1 of the draft, 
> we will follow Eric's suggestion in his mail of 16th April ( 

Note that this is

> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/current/msg02664.html

My email reader doesn't work with the original link as it includes the ")"
at the end.

Marshall

>
> Therefore please indicate your support or otherwise by responding to 
> this message or e-mailing the WG chairs privately with one of the 
> following three
> options:
>
> 2) Yes/Support for draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 to be adopted 
> as a WG document provided section 3.1 is removed.
>
> 3) No/Do not support draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 being 
> adopted as a WG document at all.
>

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:55:39 -0400

Yes/Support for option 1

Regards,
Jeff  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 09:01
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a L3VPN WG document

Colleagues,

Ben

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:39:32 -0700

Ben,

> Please send your responses by the end of May 9th PST.

Please note the following from 3.2 S-PMSI Signaling of
draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations:

                                           the authors specifically do
   not recommend extending the already proposed UDP-based TLV protocol
   to new types of P-tunnels.

Note that option 1 above is a direct contradiction of the recommendation
made in draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations, as section 3.1 of
draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 describes extensions to
UDP-based S-PMSI signaling to support new types of P-tunnels.

Note also that draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06, including
the recommendation not to extend UDP-based S-PMSI signaling to other
types of P-tunnels, passed L3VPN WG Last Call, passed IETF Last
Call, and has been submitted to RFC Editor for publications.

All this shows that L3VPN WG already made a decision wrt not extending
UDP-based S-PMSI signaling. There is no justification to revisit
this decision. Thus I would like to ask you to modify your call,
and remove option 1 from the list of possible options.

Yakov.

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:45:56 +0200

Support

Cheers,
R.

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:52:29 +0200

To be precise support for option 1.

As to Yakov's comment we all at some point learn from our mistakes so I 
see no reason not to extend UDP-based S-PMSI signaling to support new 
types of P-tunnels. It really does not matter for the new/current work 
what is the status of historical work in IETF.

Let the service providers and market decide which one is better from 
practical and deployment point of view.

Cheers,
R.

>> we will
>> as a

---

From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H (ATTLABS)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:49:37 -0400

Yes/support for option 1.

Using S-PMSI Join messages to advertise mLDP P-tunnels is useful if SP
does not want to deploy BGP MVPN infrastructure but use mLDP as
P-tunneling protocol.
So, I don't see any harm but possible advantage of allowing such option.

Maria

> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:01 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a
L3VPN
> WGdocument
we
> will
> this

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:44:56 +0200

Ben, Colleagues,

The working group has recently submitted to the IESG a document that
highlights the drawbacks of the UDP-based S-PMSI signaling mechanism,
compared to the BGP-based S-PMSI signaling mechanism, and specifically
recommends against extending the UDP-based scheme for types of tunnels
beyond what is already covered by the base mVPN specs recently submitted
to the IESG [draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-06#section-3.2]. 
Nobody commented against this part of the document, even though the
document was debated in length on many other points.

Eric mentioned the promise made between co-authors of mVPN specs and an
A-D as a key argument to adopt the IPv6-related part of this draft, even
though this promise did not involve the working group.   By comparison,
strong and recent working group consensus to not extend the UDP-based
signaling to other types of P-tunnels, looks to me as a reason at least
as good to *not* adopt a document proposition such an extension.

So well, I don't think that adopting the document with section 3.1
should even be considered, and in any case I'm opposed the adoption of
the document if it includes that section.

-Thomas

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:27:10 -0700

+1

> Thomas Morin
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 7:45 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Poll to adopt draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 as a
> L3VPN WG document
> 
> Ben, Colleagues,
>

---

From: IJsbrand Wijnands <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:59:16 +0200

Thomas,

> document was debated in length on many other points.

There are many successful deployments of the UDP based mechanism and many of these customers don't even care to come to IETF to debate this. There is a perfectly valid deployment reason to allow a simple extension to the UDP based mechanism, even if it goes against your recommendation.

I vote for option 1.

Thx,

Ice.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:18:43 -0700

Ice,

> There are many successful deployments of the UDP based mechanism and many of 
> these customers don't even care to come to IETF to debate this. There 
> is a perfectly valid deployment reason to allow a simple extension to 
> the UDP based mechanism, even if it goes against your recommendation.

The recommendation is *not* just Thomas' recommendation - it is the
recommendation of the L3VPN WG. So, extending the UDP-based S-PMSI
signaling goes against recommendation of L3VPN WG !

While there is nothing that would force a particular service provider
to come to IETF and to participate in L3VPN WG, it does not mean
that L3VPN WG has to standardize every possible option that every
possible service provider may want. 

Yakov.

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:47:05 -0400

Since this is not the US Senate, maybe we can spend more time debating the
issues and less time debating whether we are allowed to debate the issues ;-)

So I'd like to try to stay focused on the issues, which are:

- IPv6 extensions were promised to the IESG as a condition of approving the
  architecture spec,

- MPLS extensions provide a way for an SP to migrate to MPLS multicast
  before migrating to BGP A-D:

  * this independence of data plane from control plane is supposed to be a
    requirement (as determined by the L3VPN WG ;-) )

  * the WG has no control over whether this sort of migration will happen,
    the issue for the WG is whether there should be an IETF standard to
    support it.

Simple, straightforward, well-defined benefit; seems like the right thing to
do.  Hardly worth arguing about ;-)

If desired by the WG, we could add some text acknowledging that the BGP
S-PMSI A-D routes are the preferred mechanism, and that these S-PMSI Join
Extensions are primarily to allow data plane migration to precede control
plane migration.

---

From: Kaliraj Vairavakkalai <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:22:45 +0530

+1.

imho, when the disadvantages of the UDP based mechanism are well
agreed-upon, there seems to be good-reason for WG to not encourage
further extensions/deployments of the UDP-based mechanism.

Kaliraj 
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Yakov Rekhter
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:49 PM
> To: IJsbrand Wijnands
> Cc: Thomas Morin; [email-masked]
> L3VPN WGdocument
> > > Eric mentioned the promise made between co-authors of mVPN specs
and
> an
> > > A-D as a key argument to adopt the IPv6-related part of this
draft,
> even
> > > should even be considered, and in any case I'm opposed the
adoption
> of
> we wi
> ll
> > >> message or e-mailing the WG chairs privately with one of the
> following thr
> ee
> > >> options:
> > >>
> > >> 1) Yes/Support for the entire of draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-
> joins-00 to
> be
> > >> 2) Yes/Support for draft-rosen-l3vpn-mvpn-spmsi-joins-00 to be
> adopted as
> a
> adopted a
> s

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:36:31 -0700

Eric,

> issues and less time debating whether we are allowed to debate the issues ;-)

In order to make forward progress the WG should not debate the
issues on which the WG already reached consensus. This has nothing
to do with the US Senate, but with the need for make forward progress
in IETF.

Your question on whether the WG should accept the spec that includes
extending UDP-based S-PMSI signaling to other types of P-tunnels
is nothing more than trying to revisit an issue on which the WG
reached consensus.

Yakov.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:58:56 +0100

Thomas,

> the document if it includes that section.

Does this mean that you would support adoption of the document if section
3.1 was removed or that you object to the adoption of the document in
general?

Thanks
Ben

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:01:47 +0100

John,

Same question to you that I just asked Thomas:

Thanks
Ben

[I am trying to separate out whether the ongoing debate is really just about
Section 3.1 of the document or there are more general objections to the
document]