Subject: Re: Draft L1VPN Charter

From: Igor Bryskin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 07:18:03 -0700 (PDT)

Alex, All

2. Enhanced mode: the CE-PE interface provides the signaling capabilities
as in the Basic mode, plus permits utilization of the provider's control
plane for distribution of user's routing information (e.g. similar to the
MPLS/BGP model).

I’d like to replace this with:

2. Enhanced mode: the CE-PE interface provides the signaling capabilities
as in the Basic mode, plus permits utilization of the provider's control
plane for distribution of user's arbitrary control plane information between the VPN sites including but not limited to routing information.

Provider network IHMO should make no assumptions on what protocols are running within VPNs. Generally speaking, a L1VPN user is not necessarily GMPLS controlled network. Furthermore, even in case it does use GMPLS it needs L1VPN CE-CE connections to provide (TE) links within VPNs. Specifically, the User should be capable to run LMP for such links, it also should be possible to establish signaling (RSVP) adjacencies between their ends, etc. The bottom line is that distribution of routing information between CEs IHMO is not sufficient. I believe this is consistent with the requirements stated in ITU-T SG13 L1VPN documents 

Igor   

Alex Zinin <[email-masked]> wrote: 

Folks-

Before we bring it to the l1vpn mailing list, I'd like to run this draft
by you guys for comments.

-- 
Alex

Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks (l1vpn)

Last Modified: 2005-01-25
Chair(s):
TBD
TBD

Routing Area Director(s):
Bill Fenner 
Alex Zinin 

Routing Area Advisor:
Alex Zinin 

Technical Advisor(s):

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l1vpn/index.html

Description of Working Group:

L1VPN Working Group's task is to specify mechanisms necessary for
providing a VPN service over a GMPLS transport network.

The following two service models will be addressed:

1. Basic mode: the CE-PE interface's functional repertoire is limited to
path setup signalling only. The GMPLS network is not involved in
distribution of user's routing information.

2. Enhanced mode: the CE-PE interface provides the signaling capabilities
as in the Basic mode, plus permits utilization of the provider's control
plane for distribution of user's routing information (e.g. similar to the
MPLS/BGP model).

The WG will work on the following items:

1. Specification of the L1VPN user-to-network interface (UNI) basic mode,
including both CE and PE functionality.

2. Specification of the L1VPN node-to-node interface (NNI) basic mode.

3. MIB modules and/or extensions required for UNI and NNI basic mode.

4. Specification of L1VPN UNI enhanced mode.

5. Specification of L1VPN NNI enhanced mode.

6. MIB modules and/or extensions required for UNI and NNI enhanced mode.

Protocol extensions required for L1VPN will be done in cooperation with
CCAMP, OSPF, IS-IS, IDR, and other WGs where necessary.

Milestones:

Sep 05 Submit first Internet Drafts of UNI and NNI basic mode
specifications
Dec 05 Submit first Internet Drafts of MIB modules for UNI and NNI basic
mode
Jun 06 Submit UNI and NNI basic mode specifications to IESG for
publication as Proposed Standard
Jun 06 Submit first Internet Drafts of UNI and NNI enhanced mode
specifications
Aug 06 Submit MIB modules for UNI and NNI basic mode to IESG for
publication as Proposed Standard
Dec 06 Submit UNI and NNI enhanced mode specifications to IESG for
publication as Proposed Standard
Aug 06 Submit MIB modules for UNI and NNI enhanced mode to IESG for
publication as Proposed Standard

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 15:54:31 -0700

Igor,

> Id like to replace this with:

> plane for distribution of user's arbitrary control plane information
> between the VPN sites including but not limited to routing information.

> Provider network IHMO should make no assumptions on what protocols are
> running within VPNs. Generally speaking, a L1VPN user is not necessarily
> GMPLS controlled network. Furthermore, even in case it does use GMPLS it
> needs L1VPN CE-CE connections to provide (TE) links within VPNs.
> Specifically, the User should be capable to run LMP for such links, it
> also should be possible to establish signaling (RSVP) adjacencies between
> their ends, etc. The bottom line is that distribution of routing
> information between CEs IHMO is not sufficient. I believe this is
> consistent with the requirements stated in ITU-T SG13 L1VPN documents 

Distributing "arbitrary" control plane information is a scary idea. In
fact, I should really change that to "reachability" to be even more
specific.

Igor, could you explain how representing CE-CE connections as TE links and
running LMP over them requires additional info to be distributed by the
cloud's control plane?

Alex