Subject: AW: mboned: MboneD rechartering

From: "Leymann, Nicolai" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:57:39 +0100

Hi, 

> However, rather than just giving my opinion and text for a 
> new charter, I think it might be better to poll the community 
> on this. In my current discussions with people in support of 
> my presentations at SANOG 7, I have had some surprising (to 
> me) statements from senior provider executives along the 
> lines of "there definitely needs to be accelerated work in 
> the area of QoS-enabled IP multicast and in particular MPLS 
> multicast. Scaling is one issue... , but I expect the IETF 
> community to tackle this
> adequately over the next couple of years.   Of greater concern is OA&M
> within IP and/or MPLS multicast." Fortunately, I think that 
> MBoneD is addressing OA&M (operations, administration, and 
> management), through work such as 
> draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-03.txt. However, this did get me 
> thinking about what the community needs from MBoneD, and how 
> to find out about these needs.
> 
Well, that surprises me a little bit as well, especially if I do 
look on the time frame. MPLS and Multicast is an extremly important 
issue if you need to provide a triple play platform within the 
next one or two years. Several problems - like MPLS multicast - 
are currently tackled by the IETF but not solved making it quite 
difficult to implement Multicast an MPLS backbone. 

Regarding OA&M, drafts like draft-ietf-mboned-maccnt-req-03.txt 
are definitly a step into the right direction. This topic is of 
major concern if you plan to deploy a larger network with 
IP-Multicast support.

> I think that this has worked well for L3VPN, and provided a 
> much broader assessment of MVPN requirements that just 
> relying on those active in the list.
> 
> I would like to propose that the MBoneD WG do something 
> similar to motivate its rechartering. I have a list of 
> questions, but first I would like to see if there is any 
> support for this on list, before I inflict my list on the group.
> 
I think it's really a good idea to gather information about 
requirements and/or existing deployment scenarios for internet 
multicast. In fact for the L3VPN multicast requirements it 
worked quite well (even if the results from the services 
providers are varying a lot). This would be very helpful to 
understand the existing deployments for internet multicast as 
well as get some ideas where the limitations are. The 
"interaction" of internet multicast with L3VPN multicast is
probably also of interest (I think it's not unlikely that ISPs 
considering the deployment of both solutions over a single 
Network).

If there is enough interest, I volunteer for providing a 
first version of a survey as basis for further discussion 
on the mailing list.

 regards

    Nic

--
Dipl. Inf. Nicolai Leymann
 
T-Systems International GmbH
Senior Expert, IP-Technologies
Systems Integration
Technologiezentrum
Engineering Networks, Products & Services 
Packet based Carrier Transport Networks 
Goslarer Ufer 35, D- 10589 Berlin 
Tel +49 30 3497-3570 
Fax +49 30 3497-3571 
Mobile +49 170 2275345
E-Mail: [email-masked]
Internet: http://www.t-systems.com
_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

---

From: "Leymann, Nicolai" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:56:41 +0100

Hi,

> 
> FWIW, I don't think the current charter itself is badly out 
> of date at the moment, it just is what we may not know well 
> enough what needs to be done on the field.  A survey or some 
> other activity on operational fora could help here.
> 
Well, maybe some "fine tuning" is needed, but in general the 
charter looks ok for me. Maybe it helps to include recent 
developments (OA&M, Multicast survey, etc)?

  regards

     Nic