Subject: mboned: Items for charter

From: Jerome Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:34:45 +0200

Hi,

I would like to see the following items on the list:

- Multicast management (was agreed in Dallas, and must be clearly 
written in the charter) We can't just accept a management section in 
some IPTV related proposal. We really need to define a management 
architecture.

- MVPN. Many things happening on that topic. We need to include that in 
what we do otherwise we will miss a big part of futur deployments.

- IPv4 / IPv6 multicast interaction. I believe we have nice solutions 
that could be part of IETF (Stig?)

Thanks !

Jerome
_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:29:17 +0100

> that could be part of IETF (Stig?)

I agree with these two items.

Stig's draft is here:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-venaas-mboned-v4v6mcastgw-00.txt

Running code:
http://www.uninett.no/testnett/multicast/mcgw/

I recall the draft was discussed in 2004 and not adopted because it seemed
to fall in a crack between v6ops and mboned.   Looks to be appropriate for 
an Informational progression?

As stated in the meeting, I'd like to see troubleshooting more explictly
included in the charter.   This may help show up opportunities for new tools
to be developed.

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:39:16 -0400

Hello;

On Jul 11, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Jerome Durand wrote:

> written in the charter) We can't just accept a management section  
> in some IPTV related proposal. We really need to define a  
> management architecture.

OK; we should discuss this some. Can we meet here in Montreal ?

>
> - MVPN. Many things happening on that topic. We need to include  
> that in what we do otherwise we will miss a big part of futur  
> deployments.

I agree, but there is an issue here in that L3VPN has in its charter

"The WG will address deployment of the following features in a VPN
environment:

     1. IP Multicast
     2. IPv6"

I would like to have  a closer relation with L2VPN but am not sure  
how to arrange this - maybe the ADs and WG Chairs on that side (cc:ed  
here) have some thoughts on the matter ?

>
> - IPv4 / IPv6 multicast interaction. I believe we have nice  
> solutions that could be part of IETF (Stig?)
>

Have these been written up ?

> Jerome

Thank you for your participation !

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Jerome Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:08:24 +0200

>> - MVPN. Many things happening on that topic. We need to include that 
>> in what we do otherwise we will miss a big part of futur deployments.
> 
> I would like to have  a closer relation with L2VPN but am not sure how 
> to arrange this - maybe the ADs and WG Chairs on that side (cc:ed here) 
> have some thoughts on the matter ?

My understanding is that if L3VPN and L2VPN propose solutions for 
MVPN's, we would talk deployment/operational issues with MVPNs ?

> Have these been written up ?

Maybe the first step could be to agree on some scenarios. I could 
describe the simple scenario we have in our backbone but I guess other 
operators might have other problems where completly different solutions 
might be needed. Maybe this is purely v6ops issue but I guess this group 
would be better to find solutions.

Jerome