RE: decisions on L2 solutions documents

Vasile,

 

See my comments in-line.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Vasile Radoaca [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 8:28 AM
To: Rick Wilder; Loa Andersson; Hamid Ould-Brahim
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: decisions on L2 solutions documents

 

Loa/Rick 

My whish was to have these questions public before the decision was
made, so we will be  more effective to defend our postion.

I think this is in line with the course we are taking. We will have a
public discussion of these questions prior to making a decision about
the future of the draft in the WG.

While your questions are reasonable and important for the debate, I do
have my self couple of clarifications that I would like to be addressed:

- these are the only questions regarding the draft? 

I can't guarantee that. Those are the questions so far. During the
discussion others could come up. In a reasonable time we should reach a
point where we can make an informed decision.


- the decision for GVPLS as WD is revocable or depends how satisfactory 
  are the answers to such questions? 

All that has been said is that we'll have a discussion, get more
information, and then decide.


- if the decision is not irrevocable, do we have a deadline till the
debate would proof positive or not ? A new version of the draft, that
would addres your questions, would  a prefer way to go

I don't think we want a long-term on-going debate. Let Loa and I decide
schedule details and get back to you early next week.

- can we recognize that it was support in the  group from both vendors
and SPs? 

The email list input is not forgotten.

I would try to answer to your questions during the next days. However, I
would like to invite other people to participate in the debate, that
have supported the draft, and they know GVPLS is working in the field
and is scalable as  is defined in the draft.

Input is invited from the WG as a whole as long as it can be focused on
clarifying the draft and analysis of its merits.

In a simplistic view, I see the following relationship: 
- vpls < hvpls < gvpls 

VPLS is the default one - probable every vendor thought about this
solution. 
HVPLS was invented because VPLS doesn't scale and impose some
restrictions that would be hard  validated in the real field. HVPLS does
scale in only one dimension - VC-LABEL space.

GVPLS was invented to increase the scalability in multiple dimensions,
and to distribute the load between different network components so the
network performance and stability is maintained. As any other solution a
this level, there are  more "liberal" ideas proposed in the draft [like
M2P], and probable they request more time to be incorporated in the
current cycle of thinking. 

Cheers 
   Vasile 

Thanks for your help, Vasile!

 

Rick

-----Original Message----- 
From: Rick Wilder [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:34 PM 
To: Loa Andersson; Ould-Brahim, Hamid [CAR:1A00:EXCH] 
Cc: [email protected] 
Subject: RE: decisions on L2 solutions documents 

 

Agreed, Loa. 

Here are the questions/requests-for-clarification that came up. 

    a) how do the discovery and signaling parts of the document 
       relate to those described in the other solutions documents and
which 
       of them are suggested to be mandatory to implement 

    b) what is the status of the MAC-in-MAC encapsulation work in IEEE? 

    c) for the case where the U-PE network is a completely ethernet 
       switched network, and encapsulation like MAC-in-MAC is used, 
       what part of the architecture belongs to the IETF? 

    c) definition of M2P PWs is outside the scope of this WG and 
       probably should go to PWE3 

    d) how does the definition of semantics of the PW CW given 
       in the document relate to those defined in the PWE3 WG? 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:08 PM 
To: Hamid Ould-Brahim 
Cc: Rick Wilder; [email protected] 
Subject: Re: decisions on L2 solutions documents 

Rick, 

the question from Hamid is what I should call "loaded". The real issue
here is (evn if you felt you had the wg support from the mailing list at
the time, which I don't know), that the issues the AD / wg chair
discussion should be made available to the list/wg.

Review results may change how you feel about making things wg doc or
not, even if they come form ADs :) 

Mailing list discussion of those review results may lift or confirm
those conserns. 

/Loa 

Hamid Ould-Brahim wrote: 
> Rick, 
> 
>  > 
>  > - GVPLS/LPE draft-radoaca-ppvpn-gvpls-01.txt : This draft is  > not

> made a WG document at this time. Several questions have  > come up 
> regarding this document during discussions between  > the ADs and WG 
> chairs. In order to make an informed decision,  > these questions will

> be posted shortly to begin a discussion.  > 
> 
> In your opinion as ppvpn chair was there consensus on the mailing list

> that this draft should advance to WG doc status? 
> 
> Hamid. 
> 

 

-- 
/Loa 

mobile + 46 739 81 21 64 
email: [email protected]