Subject: RE: Proposed charter for L1VPN WG -- rev 01.01

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 23:01:54 -0400

Alex:

I would like to see the refinement that clearly defines within a single
AS. 
I also would like to see this defined as non-confederation AS at this
1st pass.  

Please confirm that this is the definition of "single-AS".

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:55 AM
To: Alex Zinin
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposed charter for L1VPN WG -- rev 01.01

alex -

it is good enough - though one point, the enhanced mode refers to "the
user" while the tasks refers to "the user network", the former appears
as a
terminal i.e. the connection starts and ends at CEs while the latter
this
is not necessarily the case anymore (the node starting/terminating the
connection would have not necessarily to be adjacent to the PE) -
suggest
to stick to the former

---

OK, couple minor fixes below.

Please check the "single-AS" wording--this is what we used for L2VPN,
and
it seems to apply here too, since the single-provider case may include
multi-AS environments.

--
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

Layer 1 Virtual Private Networks (l1vpn)

Last Modified: 2005-05-11
Chair(s):
 TBD
 TBD

Routing Area Director(s):
 Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
 Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>

Routing Area Advisor:
 Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>

Technical Advisor(s):
 TBD

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:

 The L1VPN Working Group's task is to specify mechanisms necessary for
 providing a VPN service over a GMPLS-enabled transport service-provider
 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. Provider's 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 limited exchange of information
     between the control planes of the provider and the user to help
such
     functions as discovery of reachability information in remote sites,
     or parameters of the part of the provider's network dedicated to
     the user.

 The WG will work on the following items:

  1. Framework document defining the reference network model, L1VPN
service
     model, fundamental assumptions, and terminology.

  2. Specification of the L1VPN signaling functionality between the user
     network and the provider network to support the basic mode.

  3. Specification of the L1VPN signaling and routing functionality
within
     the provider network to support the basic mode.

  4. OAM features and MIB modules and/or extensions required for the
basic
     mode.

  5. Specification of the L1VPN signaling and routing functionality
between
     the user network and the provider network to support the extended
mode.

  6. Specification of the L1VPN signaling and routing functionality
within
     the provider network to support the extended mode.

  7. OAM features and MIB modules and/or extensions required for the
     extended mode.

  8. Applicability guidelines to compare the basic and extended modes.

 At this point the WG will address the single-AS scenario only. The
 multi-AS/provider scenario may be considered in future.

 Protocol extensions required for L1VPN will be done in cooperation with
 MPLS, CCAMP, OSPF, IS-IS, IDR, L3VPN, and other WGs where necessary.
Where
 necessary, the WG will also cooperate with ITU-T.

Milestones:

  Sep 05 Submit first Internet Draft of L1VPN framework

  Sep 05 Submit first Internet Drafts of basic mode specifications

  Dec 05 Submit first Internet Drafts of MIB modules for basic mode

  Apr 06 Submit basic mode specifications to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standard

  Jun 06 Submit first Internet Drafts of enhanced mode specifications

  Aug 06 Submit MIB modules for basic mode to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standard

  Dec 06 Submit enhanced mode specifications to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standard

  Dec 06 Submit L1VPN framework to IESG for publication as Informational
RFC

  Aug 07 Submit MIB modules for enhanced mode to IESG for publication as
Proposed Standard

  Dec 07 Recharter or disband

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:42:45 -0700

Sue-

 Yes, though this makes me think that defining more details would sound
 like presupposing a BGP-based solution. Granted, "AS" is BGP lingo
 already. One could use something like "single administrative domain" or
 alike, but I'm afraid it isn't perfect either.