Re: Last Call: <draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-06.txt> (Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs) to Experimental RFC

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 23 October 2012 00:40 UTC

Message-ID: <5085E77C.5020100@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:40:28 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-06.txt> (Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs) to Experimental RFC
References: <20120905224357.14197.39927.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120905224357.14197.39927.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Adrian Farrel <afarrel@juniper.net>, draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te.all@tools.ietf.org, Dan King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Precedence: list

Hello,
	I made this comment privately during the LC period.  I don't mind
sharing it more widely:

> My high-order take away is that it seems to me that this draft runs
> counter to hierarchy-based solutions that can solve this problem just
> fine without any additional RSVP modifications. I therefore think
> this draft should be run through a WG that is willing to reconcile
> the approaches (and fully document their uses case supported by
> hierarchy). Failing that, I think the draft should have an IESG 
> applicability note added saying that this is experimental only and
> that standard hierarchy should be used to solve the problem in any 
> operational implementation/network.
> 
> As to the technical details, the next hop as identified by the Path 
> message in the VPN context, will have a route and associated label 
> within the VPN context. This VPN label can be added to the Path 
> message, just as it would be for any VPN IP packet, and additional 
> labels may be added for PE-PE transport. In implementations that 
> rewrite the IP header, the IP destination can be set to the next
> hop. The remote PE/next hop will receive the Path message with the
> VPN label which will identify the VPN context/VRF. This PE will then
> need to identify the packet as RSVP using either the router alert
> mechanism or based on the IP header destination address. So I see no
> reason for the modifications when the VAN-specific MPLS labels are
> used.
>
> Shout if you think I missed something.

Lou
On 9/5/2012 6:43 PM, The IESG wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs'
>   <draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-06.txt> as Experimental RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-10-03. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>    IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) provide connectivity between sites
>    across an IP/MPLS backbone. These VPNs can be operated using BGP/MPLS
>    and a single provider edge (PE) node may provide access to multiple
>    customer sites belonging to different VPNs.
> 
>    The VPNs may support a number of customer services including RSVP and
>    RSVP-TE traffic. This document describes how to support RSVP-TE
>    between customer sites when a single PE supports multiple VPNs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
> Due to an error by the sponsoring Area Director, the Last Call on 
> this document (which completed on 3rd September) incorrectly 
> stated that this draft was intended that it be published as Informational.
> The correct intention (as stated in the draft itself) is that it  be 
> published as Experimental. 
> 
> This Last Call is to verify community consensus for publication of
> this draft as Experimental. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: Last Call: <draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-… Lou Berger
Re: Last Call: <draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-… Lou Berger
Re: Last Call: <draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-… Peng JIANG
Re: Last Call: <draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-… Peng JIANG