Subject: [MBONED] MVPN BCP

From: "Michael McBride \(mmcbride\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:02:18 -0800

Marshall, Hiroshi, WG:

In San Diego I requested that draft-ycai-mboned-mvpn-deploy-00 be
adopted as an Informational BCP. The question arose about the
appropriateness of this draft in mboned (vs l3vpn) since its charter
focuses on the "global Internet". The L3VPN WG, however, will not
support this BCP work because they have not yet converged on an MVPN
solution. So its back to MBONED (a BCP of a multicast solution seems
most appropriate in MBONED anyway). 

This BCP reflects a solution well deployed in the field for over 4
years. It describes a solution based on a previous L3VPN draft and there
are at least 3 implementations which interop based on that draft.
Operators are requiring (including the MVPN BCP co-authors) that we act
to standardize this solution/deployment option even as the broader L3VPN
framework, and other non mature solutions, are being worked out. The
MVPN MIB, MVPN Benchmarking and MVPN BCP have all been submitted for
adoption. 

What can/should we do in MBONED to prevent the L3VPN WG from further
delaying documentation of a well known and accepted solution while it
works on incomplete options? 

draft-ycai-mboned-mvpn-deploy needs a home.

thanks,
mike

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:15:56 -0800 (PST)

This seems like working group shopping.  The WG that this belongs in 
doesn't want it (perhaps for a good reason) and I'm not sure I agree that 
it should come to another WG where it clearly out of scope.  There's a 
reason this WG has not taken on MVPN issues, and it goes well beyond 
procedural (it is explicitly out of charter).  MBoned is focused on "MBONE 
Deployment", or "the Global Internet."  MVPNs, while it is true that they 
have the word "multicast" in them, are dramatically different than what is 
seen on "the Global Internet."  Mboned doesn't have the same experience, 
understanding and appreciation of L3VPNs issues as the L3VPN WG.  If there 
was a draft that clearly belonged in Mboned, but was rejected by this WG, 
I don't think the L3VPN WG would accept it.

MVPNs should remain in the L3VPN WG where they are understood best, and 
MBone deployment issues should remain here where they are understood best.  
Just bc a draft has no home doesn't mean we should take it into ours. 

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Michael McBride (mmcbride) wrote:

-) Marshall, Hiroshi, WG:
-) 
-) In San Diego I requested that draft-ycai-mboned-mvpn-deploy-00 be
-) adopted as an Informational BCP. The question arose about the
-) appropriateness of this draft in mboned (vs l3vpn) since its charter
-) focuses on the "global Internet". The L3VPN WG, however, will not
-) support this BCP work because they have not yet converged on an MVPN
-) solution. So its back to MBONED (a BCP of a multicast solution seems
-) most appropriate in MBONED anyway). 
-) 
-) This BCP reflects a solution well deployed in the field for over 4
-) years. It describes a solution based on a previous L3VPN draft and there
-) are at least 3 implementations which interop based on that draft.
-) Operators are requiring (including the MVPN BCP co-authors) that we act
-) to standardize this solution/deployment option even as the broader L3VPN
-) framework, and other non mature solutions, are being worked out. The
-) MVPN MIB, MVPN Benchmarking and MVPN BCP have all been submitted for
-) adoption. 
-) 
-) What can/should we do in MBONED to prevent the L3VPN WG from further
-) delaying documentation of a well known and accepted solution while it
-) works on incomplete options? 
-) 
-) draft-ycai-mboned-mvpn-deploy needs a home.
-) 
-) thanks,
-) mike
-) 
-) 
-) 
-) _______________________________________________
-) MBONED mailing list
-) [email-masked]
-) https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
-)

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:15:56 -0800 (PST)

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:20:32 -0800

On 2/20/07 9:15 PM, "Leonard Giuliano" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> doesn't want it (perhaps for a good reason)

Lenny,

I'm confused. Do you think this draft belongs to MBONED or not?

>From your email,  it is clear to me that you don't think this draft belongs
to MBONED.  But MBONED was the only WG this draft was asked to be adopted as
a BCP at the previous IETF.  So which WG are you referring to here and for
what reason?  

I suppose you were referring to L3VPN,  but the discussion hasn't even
started in there yet.

> and I'm not sure I agree that
> reason this WG has not taken on MVPN issues,

Could you please state reasons other than the procedural ones or the ones
discussed below.

> and it goes well beyond
> seen on "the Global Internet."

Let us see,  here is from the charter of MBONED:

  The MBONE Deployment Working Group is a forum for coordinating
  the deployment, engineering, and operation of multicast routing
  protocols and procedures in the global Internet

And here is from the abstract of "draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt"

   In order for IP multicast traffic within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual
   Private Network) to travel from one VPN site to another, special
   protocols and procedures must be implemented by the VPN Service
   Provider.  These protocols and procedures are specified in this
   document.

Since MVPN is about multicast,  it is not that far off to assume that the
"protocols and procedures" being worked on in "-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-" are
"multicast routing protocols and procedures".

And we all know multicast routing protocols are about tracking memberships
and tree buildings and so on.  I don't see the dramatic difference here.
And I haven't seen a draft that actually describe any difference between
them.

> Mboned doesn't have the same experience,
> understanding and appreciation of L3VPNs issues as the L3VPN WG.

I respectfully disagree.

The principles governing the design, implementation and deployment of
multicast routing protocols and procedures, if done right, are the same. And
MBONED has the best collective knowledge based on the experience and success
of  introducing and running multicast in the Internet.

But even if what you were stating were true,  don't you think it is for the
better of the whole if we share the knowledge from VPN world with MBONED?

> If there 

Sure.  But I don't think it is relevant here.

> MBone deployment issues should remain here where they are understood best.

There are many aspects of MVPN.  This draft brings the piece which the
authors believe is well understood by MBONED.  That piece is deployment of
multicast routing protocols and procedures.

With the introduction of VPN,  the clear boundary of WG doesn't exist
anymore.  Why can't we leverage the knowledge of multiple WGs?

> Just bc a draft has no home doesn't mean we should take it into ours.

Why are we so afraid of discussing multicast in MBONED?  That is what I
failed to understand.

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:20:32 -0800

Lenny,

I respectfully disagree.

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:49:23 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, ycai wrote:

-) 
-) 
-) 
-) On 2/20/07 9:15 PM, "Leonard Giuliano" <[email-masked]> wrote:
-) 
-) > 
-) > This seems like working group shopping.  The WG that this belongs in
-) > doesn't want it (perhaps for a good reason)
-) 
-) Lenny,
-) 
-) I'm confused. Do you think this draft belongs to MBONED or not?
-) 
-) >From your email,  it is clear to me that you don't think this draft belongs
-) to MBONED.  But MBONED was the only WG this draft was asked to be adopted as
-) a BCP at the previous IETF.  So which WG are you referring to here and for
-) what reason?  
-) 
-) I suppose you were referring to L3VPN,  but the discussion hasn't even
-) started in there yet.
-) 

Really?  Perhaps you might recall that it was presented to L3VPN in IETF 
64 in Vancouver when this draft was called "draft-ycai-mvpn-experience."  
In fact, I believe you presented it.

-) > and I'm not sure I agree that
-) > it should come to another WG where it clearly out of scope.  There's a
-) > reason this WG has not taken on MVPN issues,
-) 
-) Could you please state reasons other than the procedural ones or the ones
-) discussed below.
-) 
-) > and it goes well beyond
-) > procedural (it is explicitly out of charter).  MBoned is focused on "MBONE
-) > Deployment", or "the Global Internet."  MVPNs, while it is true that they
-) > have the word "multicast" in them, are dramatically different than what is
-) > seen on "the Global Internet."
-) 
-) Let us see,  here is from the charter of MBONED:
-) 
-)   The MBONE Deployment Working Group is a forum for coordinating
-)   the deployment, engineering, and operation of multicast routing
-)   protocols and procedures in the global Internet
-) 
-) And here is from the abstract of "draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt"
-) 
-)    In order for IP multicast traffic within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual
-)    Private Network) to travel from one VPN site to another, special
-)    protocols and procedures must be implemented by the VPN Service
-)    Provider.  These protocols and procedures are specified in this
-)    document.
-) 
-) Since MVPN is about multicast,  it is not that far off to assume that the
-) "protocols and procedures" being worked on in "-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-" are
-) "multicast routing protocols and procedures".
-) 

"The global Internet" being the critical difference.  Mboned has expertise 
in the area of deliverying mcast streams from host to host across 
different domains.  The principle complicating factor in MVPNs, OTOH, is 
the setup and maintenance of router-router tunnels using mcast.  Very 
different thing with very different issues.  Further, the concepts 
involved in managing and scaling L3VPNs are quite different than plain-old 
Internet routing.  In fact, the current direction of MVPNs involves using 
BGP to exchange mcast routing information and neighbor maintenance, making 
MVPNs look more like unicast VPNs.  This idea has been generally eschewed 
in the global Internet mcast world.

If as you suggest, "multicast is multicast", and there's no difference 
between MVPNs and the Global Internet, why then haven't MVPNs been 
developed in the mcast working groups (MBoned, PIM, MAGMA)?  Instead, they 
have been almost entirely developed in the L3VPN WG.  I suppose this is 
for a reason.

-) And we all know multicast routing protocols are about tracking memberships
-) and tree buildings and so on.  I don't see the dramatic difference here.
-) And I haven't seen a draft that actually describe any difference between
-) them.
-) 
-) > Mboned doesn't have the same experience,
-) > understanding and appreciation of L3VPNs issues as the L3VPN WG.
-) 
-) I respectfully disagree.
-) 
-) The principles governing the design, implementation and deployment of
-) multicast routing protocols and procedures, if done right, are the same. And
-) MBONED has the best collective knowledge based on the experience and success
-) of  introducing and running multicast in the Internet.
-) 
-) But even if what you were stating were true,  don't you think it is for the
-) better of the whole if we share the knowledge from VPN world with MBONED?
-) 

Sure, sharing is good.  Adopting drafts bc they are rejected from their 
relevant WGs is not sharing, it is shopping.

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:49:23 -0800 (PST)

-) 
-) 
-)

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:56:03 -0800 (PST)

> This seems like working group shopping.  The WG that this belongs in

Nice spin. You know thats not whats going on. The bcp never left being 
considered by mboned. I just pinged Ron for his opinion. He believes the 
bcp could easily go in either l3vpn or mboned. Which wg is not the main 
purpose of my email so please don't get bogged down by this.

> doesn't want it (perhaps for a good reason) and I'm not sure I agree that

The l3vpn wg chair simply feels that because they haven't converged on an 
mvpn solution yet, an mvpn bcp is premature. I disagree and explained why. 
MBONED is the place to discuss these deployment issues. We probably need 
to initiate a discussion with l3vpn on the delay of documenting the 
solution. I'm coming to mboned for opinions on this. Some action would be 
nice.

> Just bc a draft has no home doesn't mean we should take it into ours.

Please read the draft, I promise its not threatening to you, its a BCP of 
a widely deployed solution. Operators are requesting this mature solution 
be documented in the IETF. Since l3vpn hasn't accomplished this, mboned 
should at least provide a bcp of whats been used for years. Or we 
continue to wait....

mike

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:56:03 -0800 (PST)

mike

---

From: "John Meylor \(jmeylor\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:41:47 -0800

MBONED is the appropriate working group for operational
discussions associated with multicast solutions, regardless of
their protocol or solution characteristics.  

 The mVPN BCP described here is a "Best Common Practice" draft 
on operational issues associated with a widely deployed 
multicast solution with multiple vendor implementations
available.  It is not a solution or protocol proposal, rather
it defines whats been working in the internet for nearly 
4 years now.  The draft is co-authored by several service
providers who have commercially deployed and currently operate
the mVPN solution.

Clearly the appropriate WG for this multicast BCP is MBONED.

 The mature (rosen-08) draft of this existing mVPN GRE solution
describing the interoperable implementation from multi-vendors 
had been under discussion for a long time (years) in the L3VPN
working group and the L3VPN WG has delayed forward progress on that
alternative while work on less-mature and commercially unavailable 
alternatives get discussed as part of the broader draft:
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt

 So really the focus and concern of the MBONED and IETF should be how
to move L3VPN wg forward toward standardization of the mVPN
GRE solution.

 john

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leonard Giuliano [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:16 PM
> To: Michael McBride (mmcbride)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] MVPN BCP
> 
> 
> This seems like working group shopping.  The WG that this 
> belongs in doesn't want it (perhaps for a good reason) and 
> I'm not sure I agree that it should come to another WG where 
> it clearly out of scope.  There's a reason this WG has not 
> taken on MVPN issues, and it goes well beyond procedural (it 
> is explicitly out of charter).  MBoned is focused on "MBONE 
> Deployment", or "the Global Internet."  MVPNs, while it is 
> true that they have the word "multicast" in them, are 
> dramatically different than what is seen on "the Global 
> Internet."  Mboned doesn't have the same experience, 
> understanding and appreciation of L3VPNs issues as the L3VPN 
> WG.  If there was a draft that clearly belonged in Mboned, 
> but was rejected by this WG, I don't think the L3VPN WG would 
> accept it.
> 
> MVPNs should remain in the L3VPN WG where they are understood 
> best, and MBone deployment issues should remain here where 
> they are understood best.

---

From: "John Meylor \(jmeylor\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:41:47 -0800

john

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:47:02 +0200 (EET)

> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt

If the responsible WG hasn't been able to get to concensus on this, 
I'd feel concerned about publishing a BCP (or even an Informational) 
document on one of the approaches.  Doing so seems premature.

If it's really the right choice to publish documents (probably either 
Informational or Experimental) before L3VPN WG makes a decision on 
this, we should publish all the potential solutions, not just one of 
them.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:47:02 +0200 (EET)

---

From: "John Meylor \(jmeylor\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:28:19 -0800

Pekka,

> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:47 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [MBONED] MVPN BCP
> 
> > describing the interoperable implementation from multi-vendors had 
> > been under discussion for a long time (years) in the L3VPN working 
> > group and the L3VPN WG has delayed forward progress on that 
> If the responsible WG hasn't been able to get to concensus on 
> this, I'd feel concerned about publishing a BCP (or even an 
> Informational) document on one of the approaches.  Doing so 
> seems premature.

 The BCP reflects how this multivendor interoperable solution has
been deployed for over 4 years now and the associated operational
experience from that significant deployment base. As such, 
many providers and MBONED participants have asked to have this
solution documented, and it seems logical that MBONED would take
an active position in ensuring we document this information.

 Whether IETF moves to standardize this or provide additional
alternatives
does not reduce or change the value of this BCP, in fact its
assumed MBONED and L3VPN would utilize such operational knowledge 
to help move forward on final draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt.

> If it's really the right choice to publish documents 
> (probably either Informational or Experimental) before L3VPN 
> WG makes a decision on this, we should publish all the 
> potential solutions, not just one of them.

Any solution which also has multivendor interoperable implementations, 
is being run by wide range of providers for commercial multicast
services would also be good candidate for documenting operational
experience.  of course it would be hard to document operational
experience from potential solutions with no implementation or uptime.

 john

---

From: "John Meylor \(jmeylor\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:28:19 -0800

Pekka,

 john

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:59:48 -0800

> document on one of the approaches.  Doing so seems premature.

If a WG that _claims_ itself to be responsibe does so only to actually
delay RFC adoption of a well established and widely used cross-vendor
technology that users want to have as an RFC, how do you call that ?
politics.

> this, we should publish all the potential solutions, not just one of 

That argument was used in ~2000 by RMT to throw out PGM by arguing
there are hundreds of research alternatives. 

Cheers
    Toerless

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:59:48 -0800

Cheers
    Toerless

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:49:14 -0800

Lenny,  

Please allow me to respond in two emails.

Lenny,

Yes,  I did present it.  But I did *not* ask the WG to adopt it as a WG
document at the time.  If you don't recall that,  you can check the meeting
minutes.  It is still available.

I did receive some positive feedback at the meeting and afterwards.  One of
them from Yakov which is in the minutes too.

The last two years,  the authors have incorporated further comments and
feedback.  If you read the original draft and the current one,  you should
tell the difference.

And the authors feel it is the right time now to ask for WG adoption.

FWIW,  I also presented it in MBONED in IETF-64.

> relevant WGs is not sharing, it is shopping.

You still haven't shown which IETF the rejection took place.

Now that I have presented the fact,  can we stop this accusation madness.
Let us put our time to good use.  How about contributing in a positive way
by sharing the experience you have with implementing and deploying MVPN?

Thanks.

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:49:14 -0800

Lenny,  

Lenny,

Thanks.

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:34:06 -0800

On 2/21/07 7:49 AM, "Leonard Giuliano" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> "The global Internet" being the critical difference.

Lenny,

Let me first list some of the things that are common.

The BCP describes some deployment scenarios based on the same technology
multicast in today's Internet uses.  IGMP,  PIM, MSDP as well as GRE being
the obvious ones.  

>From both network and user's points of view,  how to achieve redundancy,
how to reduce end-to-end delay,  how to manage a PIM network etc... are
topics of interest to both mboned and l3vpn.  And the BCP describes that.

> Mboned has expertise
> different domains.

Isn't the same apply to an l3VPN environment?  And I have seen it in
production networks.

Besides,  MBONED also has expertise in steering the protocol development
which is an integral and critical piece of MVPN.

> The principle complicating factor in MVPNs, OTOH, is
> the setup and maintenance of router-router tunnels using mcast.

That is one aspect of it.

> Very 
> different thing with very different issues.

True,  but as I said,  there are other issues that are in common.

Even for the router-to-router tunnels,  if they are signaled by PIM,  you
know how much existing expertise can be leveraged.  Even if they are
signaled by RSVP/TE and mLDP,  lessons learned in the past to build trees
can still be passed around and discussed.

> Further, the concepts
> Internet routing.

I will be happy if anything that can scale to the current Internet level,
L*VPN included.

But these are the things that we want to discuss.  How different it is,  and
why MBONED's experience can't be applicable.

> In fact, the current direction of MVPNs involves using

The BCP doesn't touch this area, for the reason that it is a BCP.  It
focuses on running code and interoperable implementations,  all of which
have common traits in MBONED.

I don't know when BGP based multicast routing exchange will be implemented
and deployed.  But when that happens,  we can have a different BCP (or
enhancing this one).  And then we can debate whether it belongs to mboned or
l3vpn.  But we are not there yet.

> between MVPNs and the Global Internet,

But there is so much to share.

> why then haven't MVPNs been

Absolutely.  And I don't see anything we disagree here.

We didn't develop PIM/IGMP/MSDP/ in MBONED;  but we talk about deployment of
multicast in MBONED.  Same with MVPN,  we  develop protocols/solutions in
L3VPN and talk about operational side of the story in MBONED.  That is what
the BCP is for, right?

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:34:06 -0800

Lenny,

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:36:42 -0800

> this, we should publish all the potential solutions, not just one of

Except that the potential solutions have to be implemented and deployed.
Otherwise,   it is not BCP.

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:36:42 -0800

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:58:20 -0800 (PST)

Hi Mike,

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Michael McBride (mmcbride) wrote:

> solution.

What do you mean by "because they have not yet converged on an MVPN
solution" ?

> So its back to MBONED (a BCP of a multicast solution seems
> years. It describes a solution based on a previous L3VPN draft
> and there are at least 3 implementations which interop based on that
> draft.

Which draft is that ?

> Operators are requiring (including the MVPN BCP co-authors) that
> we act to standardize this solution/deployment option even as the
> broader L3VPN framework, and other non mature solutions, are being worked out.

Is the goal to standardize the solution documented in a "previous" L3VPN
WG draft ?

rahul

> The

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:58:20 -0800 (PST)

Hi Mike,

Which draft is that ?

rahul

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:44:32 -0800 (PST)

Rahul,

> What do you mean by "because they have not yet converged on an MVPN

This is a direct quote from an l3vpn wg chair. It tells me that 
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast continues to have a fair amount of work 
left.

>> and there are at least 3 implementations which interop based on that

rosen08

> Is the goal to standardize the solution documented in a "previous" L3VPN

Exactly. Any help you could provide to get at least the mature rosen08 
portion, of your converged draft, standardized would be much appreciated. 
I don't know, perhaps it needs to be split off into its own draft again.

thanks,
mike

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:44:32 -0800 (PST)

Rahul,

rosen08

thanks,
mike

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:49:49 -0500

Hello;

>> and there are at least 3 implementations which interop based on that

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-rosen-vpn-mcast-08.txt ,  AKA "the  
Rosen draft", which is a PIM based MVPN
solution.

The issue is that this has seen some deployment, but it has been  
deprecated by L3VPN,
while the new BGP based MVPN solution is not finished and has as far  
as I know no deployment.

Speaking without any hat on, just as an IETF participant, the  
previous paragraph makes me uneasy.

Note that, while there is some interdomain MVPN deployments, it is  
typically Company X connecting
to Company Y for some specific reason (I personally have encountered  
this several times recently);
I know of no plans to do a truly wide deployment of any of this  
connecting many domains with general peering.

One question to the list is whether this is sufficiently interdomain  
for us to take on.

> Is the goal to standardize the solution documented in a "previous"  

That is my understanding.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:49:49 -0500

Hello;

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:29:28 -0500

Dear Mike;

I have a procedural issue here :

It is not clear to me that the Rosen-08 draft will ever become a RFC.  
You have
it as a Informative reference, but it seems to me that it would be  
more appropriately
a normative reference, which would of course cause a problem, as you  
can't have an
RFC with references to a I-D. Note that Rosen-08 is an individual  
submission; I do not
know of any plans to advance it. (Not saying they don't exist, just  
that I don't know of any.)

I think that an AD could argue that the reference to Rosen-08 is  
normative in nature. In any case,
I don't see how this draft could be published before Rosen-08. Can  
you see away out of this ?

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:29:28 -0500

Dear Mike;

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:28:47 -0800 (PST)

We have a normative reference to draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast (which 
includes draft-rosen-vpn-mcast-08 in the solution). 
draft-rosen-vpn-mcast-08 is listed as an informative reference for 
historical reasons. This seems appropriate but certainly could be removed 
as we move closer to standardization.

mike

> It is not clear to me that the Rosen-08 draft will ever become a RFC. You 
> have
> it as a Informative reference, but it seems to me that it would be more 
> appropriately
> a normative reference, which would of course cause a problem, as you can't 
> have an
> RFC with references to a I-D. Note that Rosen-08 is an individual submission; 
> I do not
> know of any plans to advance it. (Not saying they don't exist, just that I 
> don't know of any.)
>
> I think that an AD could argue that the reference to Rosen-08 is normative in 
> nature. In any case,
> I don't see how this draft could be published before Rosen-08. Can you see 
> away out of this ?
>
> Regards
> Marshall
>

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:28:47 -0800 (PST)

mike

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:56:50 -0800 (PST)

Hi Mike,

> draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast continues to have a fair amount of work

Yes. Thanks for the clarification. But it would be incorrect to give the
impression that the L3VPN WG does not have a solution for MVPNs and isn't
maturing the solution. There are two drafts in the L3VPN WG on MVPNs
that are *WG* drafts:

draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp

Like any other IETF standard track documents the drafts are maturing.  The
fact that the L3VPN WG has WG drafts for MVPNs, which are being worked on
by multiple vendors and SPs, shows that the L3VPN WG is converging.

> >> and there are at least 3 implementations which interop based on that

First for good reasons the L3VPN WG moved forward with the 2 WG drafts
listed above and decided not to pursue any prior L3VPN *non WG* drafts.

Second its questionable what portion of rosen8 has inter-operable
implementations.

> Exactly.

The fact is that the L3VPN WG decided to move forward with the 2 WG drafts
listed above and decided not to pursue one or more of the previous non-WG
drafts. Any standardization on MVPNs must be done within the realms of
these WG drafts.

> Any help you could provide to get at least the mature rosen08

The converged draft is indeed on standards track and is moving along. Are
you concerned that it is not a rfc yet ?

rahul

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:56:50 -0800 (PST)

Hi Mike,

rahul

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:35:28 -0800

I think there was some confusion about whether the BCP doc was based on
solutions IETF decided to deprecate, which is obviously not the case.
Specifically, the solution(s) the BCP describes is documented in 5.2, 7.2
and 11.1 of draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast.

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:35:28 -0800

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:28:08 -0800 (PST)

-) MBONED is the appropriate working group for operational
-) discussions associated with multicast solutions, regardless of
-) their protocol or solution characteristics.  
-) 

Not according to our charter.

-)  The mVPN BCP described here is a "Best Common Practice" draft 
-) on operational issues associated with a widely deployed 
-) multicast solution with multiple vendor implementations
-) available.  It is not a solution or protocol proposal, rather
-) it defines whats been working in the internet for nearly 
-) 4 years now.  The draft is co-authored by several service
-) providers who have commercially deployed and currently operate
-) the mVPN solution.
-) 
-) Clearly the appropriate WG for this multicast BCP is MBONED.
-) 

Again, see our charter.

-)  The mature (rosen-08) draft of this existing mVPN GRE solution
-) describing the interoperable implementation from multi-vendors 

Actually, the multivendor support is based on Rosen-06.  Items were added 
to Rosen-07 (now -08) that made it no longer backwards-compatible with 
implementations based on version 06.  These issues were very contentious 
within the L3VPN WG (see L3VPN mail archives from July 04) and ultimately 
led to a push towards the current NG MVPN solution.  

I point this out bc I think it illustrates the danger of overreaching 
beyond our charter or scope.  Outside of the relevant group with an 
expertise in these issues, small yet critical and contentious details can 
get overlooked or glossed over (accidentally or deliberately) in MBONED.

This working group is not called "mcast-ops", nor is it "MVPND", nor 
"MEnterpriseD", nor "MFinancialD"; rather it is MBONED, and we deal with 
mcast operational issues relevant to multicast deployment on the Global 
Internet.  As was mentioned in San Diego, we do not have the expertise to 
adopt all mcast technologies, like L1 or L2VPNs.

Unless we are to change our charter (and name), this doesn't belong in 
MBONED.  And I would strongly oppose adding MVPNs to our charter.  We have 
enough trouble achieving our central goal of increasing mcast deployment 
on the global Internet.  Adding MVPNs, IMO, would eventually derail MBONED 
from all our other goals, and would instead adopt all the headaches of 
another WG.

-) had been under discussion for a long time (years) in the L3VPN
-) working group and the L3VPN WG has delayed forward progress on that
-) alternative while work on less-mature and commercially unavailable 
-) alternatives get discussed as part of the broader draft:
-) draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt
-) 

Not our problem.

-)  So really the focus and concern of the MBONED and IETF should be how
-) to move L3VPN wg forward toward standardization of the mVPN
-) GRE solution.
-) 

This should be the real focus of the L3VPN WG not MBONED.  Just bc they 
may not be proceeding in the direction you want, doesn't mean this WG 
should usurp their responsibilities.

-) 
-)  john
-) 
-) 
-)   
-) > -----Original Message-----
-) > From: Leonard Giuliano [mailto:[email-masked]] 
-) > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 9:16 PM
-) > To: Michael McBride (mmcbride)
-) > Cc: [email-masked]
-) > Subject: Re: [MBONED] MVPN BCP
-) > 
-) > 
-) > This seems like working group shopping.  The WG that this 
-) > belongs in doesn't want it (perhaps for a good reason) and 
-) > I'm not sure I agree that it should come to another WG where 
-) > it clearly out of scope.  There's a reason this WG has not 
-) > taken on MVPN issues, and it goes well beyond procedural (it 
-) > is explicitly out of charter).  MBoned is focused on "MBONE 
-) > Deployment", or "the Global Internet."  MVPNs, while it is 
-) > true that they have the word "multicast" in them, are 
-) > dramatically different than what is seen on "the Global 
-) > Internet."  Mboned doesn't have the same experience, 
-) > understanding and appreciation of L3VPNs issues as the L3VPN 
-) > WG.  If there was a draft that clearly belonged in Mboned, 
-) > but was rejected by this WG, I don't think the L3VPN WG would 
-) > accept it.
-) > 
-) > MVPNs should remain in the L3VPN WG where they are understood 
-) > best, and MBone deployment issues should remain here where 
-) > they are understood best.  
-) > Just bc a draft has no home doesn't mean we should take it into ours. 
-) > 
-) > 
-) > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Michael McBride (mmcbride) wrote:
-) > 
-) > -) Marshall, Hiroshi, WG:
-) > -) 
-) > -) In San Diego I requested that draft-ycai-mboned-mvpn-deploy-00 be
-) > -) adopted as an Informational BCP. The question arose about the
-) > -) appropriateness of this draft in mboned (vs l3vpn) since 
-) > its charter
-) > -) focuses on the "global Internet". The L3VPN WG, however, will not
-) > -) support this BCP work because they have not yet converged 
-) > on an MVPN
-) > -) solution. So its back to MBONED (a BCP of a multicast 
-) > solution seems
-) > -) most appropriate in MBONED anyway). 
-) > -) 
-) > -) This BCP reflects a solution well deployed in the field for over 4
-) > -) years. It describes a solution based on a previous L3VPN 
-) > draft and there
-) > -) are at least 3 implementations which interop based on that draft.
-) > -) Operators are requiring (including the MVPN BCP 
-) > co-authors) that we act
-) > -) to standardize this solution/deployment option even as the 
-) > broader L3VPN
-) > -) framework, and other non mature solutions, are being 
-) > worked out. The
-) > -) MVPN MIB, MVPN Benchmarking and MVPN BCP have all been 
-) > submitted for
-) > -) adoption. 
-) > -) 
-) > -) What can/should we do in MBONED to prevent the L3VPN WG 
-) > from further
-) > -) delaying documentation of a well known and accepted 
-) > solution while it
-) > -) works on incomplete options? 
-) > -) 
-) > -) draft-ycai-mboned-mvpn-deploy needs a home.
-) > -) 
-) > -) thanks,
-) > -) mike
-) > -) 
-) > -) 
-) > -) 
-) > -) _______________________________________________
-) > -) MBONED mailing list
-) > -) [email-masked]
-) > -) https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
-) > -) 
-) > 
-) > _______________________________________________
-) > MBONED mailing list
-) > [email-masked]
-) > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
-) > 
-) 
-) _______________________________________________
-) MBONED mailing list
-) [email-masked]
-) https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
-)

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:28:08 -0800 (PST)

Again, see our charter.

Not our problem.

-) 
-)  john
-) 
-) 
-)

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:54:39 -0800

On 2/22/07 7:28 PM, "Leonard Giuliano" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Actually, the multivendor support is based on Rosen-06.

Lenny,  that might be true in July 2004.  But we are in 2007 now ;)

> Items were added 
> implementations based on version 06.

There were additions in rosen-08, some of which is also described in
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast.  Not all of the additions are covered by the
BCP.  Only the ones that have the multi-vendor support and gone through
interop testing are.  The BCP itself has evolved over the year and half.

Regarding compatibility.  Functions supported in -06 and *implemented* by
vendors did *not* get changed in -07/-08.  I consider that
backward-compatible from a practical sense.  And I have indeed seen routers
from different vendors supporting different versions of rosen draft running
together.

> These issues were very contentious
> within the L3VPN WG (see L3VPN mail archives from July 04)

I didn't think the backward compatibility issue was at the center of
attention.  But this thread is not the best place to debate.

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: ycai <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:54:39 -0800

-- 
Yiqun