RE: discussion topics for the mail list

I support pursual of draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt based on the
following reasoning:

I believe the base 'VPN problem' has the following functional building
blocks:

1	server layer discovery of access points that belong to a given
VPN....radius could provide a common functional component here across all
network modes.  A key observation here is that the server layer in question
must have its own layer network addressable access points and some agreed
method of VPN-ID 'name' generation;

2	server layer signalling to create data-plane connectivity between
above access points......I see the signalling chosen as being network mode
specific;
[1 and 2 effectively create a simple managed BW VPN in the server layer
network in question]

3	client layer reachability distribution.  This is a 'value-add'
feature agreed between SP and VPN customer.  BGP looks a good common choice
here across all modes.  Note - It does assume that the client layer has
'sensibly' structured addressing and its own robust routing protocol.

IMO draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt is largely targetted at the
first of these functional components.

regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Wilder [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 16 June 2003 18:46
> To: Juha Heinanen; Yakov Rekhter
> Cc: W. Mark Townsley; Kireeti Kompella; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: discussion topics for the mail list
> 
> 
> 
> My view of this process is that there was WG consensus behind this
> document at the SF meeting and the mail list. Then specific 
> issues were
> raised, primarily by Bernard, about this solution's use of Radius. 
> 
> I think the main point to be discussed is whether the changes made by
> this latest version of the document adequately address those concerns.
> It seems only fair for people to have a chance to look at the changes
> and comment, but I don't think we need to go back to square one unless
> we have a specific and compelling reason (which I don't think I've
> seen).
> 
> Rick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 11:10 AM
> To: Yakov Rekhter
> Cc: W. Mark Townsley; Kireeti Kompella; Rick Wilder;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: discussion topics for the mail list
> 
> Yakov Rekhter writes:
> 
>  > P.S. Since Rick asked for WG consensus, I don't think that 
>  > draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt is ready to be the WG
> document.
> 
> could you be more specific, why you think that that is the case?  it
> don't think that it is enough that someone doesn't like the 
> idea, since
> noone
> likes every idea.  me for instance don't like any bgp based proposal,
> but still i have not started a campaign against them, because i feel
> that other people are free to do what they like and it doesn't bother
> me.
> 
> -- juha
> 
> 
>