Subject: Discussing additional milestones that could be adopted by the WG?

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:29:43 +0100

Colleagues,

From comments made in Maastricht it seems that there are some objections to adopting the two proposed milestones listed below and that they would require further discussion on the mailing list before consensus to include them on the charter page could be reached.

The two proposed milestones were:
Sep-11	Submit specification of using Bi-directional P-tunnels for MVPN to IESG as PS.
Nov-11	Submit specification for using PE-PE PIM in the absence of MI-PMSI to IESG as PS.

Before we have a discussion on the details of their individual merits I would like to ask if anyone feels strongly that they *should* be included in the WG's milestones (because if no-one feels strongly about including them we can save our bandwidth for other discussions). Including the reasoning why you feel strongly that they should be included would also be helpful in seeding a discussion on whether they should be included or not.

When responding please consider what I have said before, i.e. that a piece of work not being in the milestones does not prevent individuals or the WG from working on it, or it being accepted as a WG document at some point, etc. The milestones are there to guide our work and serve as a loose prioritisation of tasks that consume WG & WG Chair time but should not be used as a barrier to doing work that the WG feels is important.

Thanks
Ben

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:28:29 -0400

> The two proposed milestones were:

Sep-11	Submit specification of using Bi-directional P-tunnels for MVPN to
        IESG as PS.

Nov-11 Submit specification for using PE-PE PIM in the absence of MI-PMSI to
       IESG as PS.

> Before we have a discussion on the details of their individual merits I
> would like to ask if anyone feels strongly that they *should* be included
> in the WG's milestones

Well, I do.   I think the WG should either accept these milestones, or
should close down (for a few years at least, until implementation and
deployment considerations are clearer).

> Including the reasoning why you feel strongly that they should be included
> would also be helpful

-  Bidirectional P-tunnels.

   The MVPN architecture explicitly accommodates the use of bidirectional
   P-tunnels.  Even the "considerations" document appears to look favorably
   at the use of MP2MP LSPs for support of C-bidir, using the "partitioned"
   model.  MP2MP LSPs can also be used in support of the migration from
   GRE/PIM-SM shared P-tunnels to MPLS.

   I don't really see any grounds for excluding this work, unless there is a
   consensus that bidirectional P-tunnels are not useful for anything.
   Given that IP bidirectional multicast tunnels are already standardized,
   and that MPLS bidirectional multicast tunnels are covered in an MPLS WG
   document, I don't see why the L3VPN WG would come to a consensus that
   bidirectional tunnels have no possible use.

- New option for using PE-PE PIM without MI-PMSI.

  Given the large number of PE-PE PIM MVPN deployments, and this option
  provides efficiency improvements that do not require a complete change of
  the MVPN PE-PE control protocol.  This is useful both for providers that
  intend to migrate to BGP C-multicast routing and for those that do not.
  (BTW, nothing in the WG drafts requires any such migration, and when the
  "considerations" draft was adopted by the WG, the authors made it clear
  that the purpose of that draft was not to require deployment of BGP
  C-multicast routing.)  Providers who migrate to MPLS multicast in their
  core networks without also migrating to BGP C-Multicast routing at the
  same time may find this work particularly useful.