RE: On BGP and VPLS

As mentioned in my initial email on the thread "Re: IMPORTANT: Strategy for
VPN work in IETF"  - this re-organization is not needed and is slowing down
progress of the PPVPN WG - The chairs should be in a position to progress
the work of their WG sine the WG is still chartered.

Bilel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wilder [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:55 PM
To: Kireeti Kompella; Alex Zinin
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: On BGP and VPLS



Kireeti,

Regarding the last part of your message, the working group chairs have been
asked to hold off of declarations of consensus on drafts in the wake of
discussions of re-organizing (ie. splitting) of the group.

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 3:18 PM
To: Alex Zinin
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: On BGP and VPLS

Hi Alex,

On Fri, 2 May 2003, Alex Zinin wrote:

>  More specifically, below I tried to put together a list of concerns  
> I have about the approach described in draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls,  
> that I would like the WG to consider.
>
>  1. Use of the NLRI field
>
>    As an IP routing protocol, BGP uses the NLRI field to carry IP
>    reachability information in the form of IP prefixes.

As an IP routing protocol, sure.  But nowhere in RFC 2858 does it say that
BGP has to only be an IP routing protocol.

Furthermore, if BGP is used for L2 autodiscovery (which is by the way a
PPVPN *Working Group* document), the exact same issue applies.

>  2. Distribution of information
>
>    When used as an IP routing protocol, BGP distributes routes among
>    all participating routers.

For 2547, you have the same issue: BGP distributes routes among *all*
participating routers, whereas only a few are really interested in them. So
why is this an issue for VPLS but not for 2547?  The distribution mechanisms
are identical.

>  3. Aggregation of information for large-scale operation

Nowhere does 2858 talk about aggregation; in fact, the notion of aggregation
is not even mentioned.

--------------

On the issues of BGP for VPLS and also of single solution vs. multiple,
there seems to me (I'm not a PPVPN WG chair!) good consensus that the WG
wants a BGP solution, and also that they want multiple solutions. Are you,
Alex, proposing to override that consensus?

The call for consensus to make the various VPLS drafts WG documents was made
over 3 weeks ago, and the call was supposed to last one week. We are thus
two weeks overdue.  I would like the WG chairs to declare what consensus
they see, keeping in mind the email that Bert Wijnen (who is a seasoned Area
Director) sent to the TE WG just today, saying:

|| But it is WG chair(s) who decide on how to gauge WG conensus.

Or, from RFC 2418:

3.3. Session management

   Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. ....
                         It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
   consensus has been reached.

Kireeti.