Re: [PWE3] draft-martini-pwe3-pw-switching-03.txt as WG draft? (fwd)

[Rahul Aggarwal <rahul at juniper.net>]

Hi Luca,

>Are you suggesting that we completely abandon all pwe3 work to date ,
> and L2TPEXT WG work ?

No.

> If not , then we need a document that explains how different PW
control
> protocols are talking to each other.
>

And the only reason for wanting such interworking is to setup MS-PWs. This
is the point that is being made.

> I see no reason why we need to stop this work to wait for the discussion
> at the next IETF. Besides , if the WG should decide to go a different
> route at a future time , we can change this draft , or drop it completely.
>

Different "route" for solving which problem ?

> Can this document be used to build MS-PW solution ? I would think yes.

We are in agreement on something :)

> >>Regardless of what protocol we choose to signal multi hop PWs , we must
> >>have a document that defines the control plane signaling Interworking
> >>between different PW setup protocols.
> >>
> >
> >And what is the reason for defining such inter-working other than to setup
> >MS-PWs ?
> >
> The reason is to have the ability to connect PWs running on different
> PSNs, and using different PW setup and maintenance protocols, such as
> LDP fec 128 , static , LDP FEC 129, and possibly even RSVP.
>

And why would one want to "connect" these PWs ? When you connect two
single segment PWs, what do you get ? Some would say a multi-segment
PW.

Let me clarify, that I am not arguing against
draft-martini-pwe3-pw-stitching. All I am saying is that it should be
treated by the WG just like other MS-PW solutions are being treated and
shouldn't be made into a WG document at this point.

rahul

> Luca
>
> >rahul
> >
> >
> >
> >>Luca
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Rahul Aggarwal wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi Stewart,
> >>>
> >>>On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The authors of
> >>>>
> >>>>draft-martini-pwe3-pw-switching-03.txt
> >>>>
> >>>>have asked that the draft be adopted as a WG draft.
> >>>>
> >>>>What is the consensus of the PWE3 WG?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>The above draft is one of the candidate solutions in the MH-PW solution
> >>>space.
> >>>
> >>>To quote you and Danny from your email that described the way forward
> >>>after the discussion on draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw:
> >>>
> >>>"The issue then becomes one of how to move forward.
> >>>
> >>>There are a number of candidate signaling protocols, and
> >>>we propose that we set a limit of three weeks before the
> >>>next IETF (i.e. -00 cutoff) for any further candidate
> >>>proposals to address the MS-PW signaling requirements.
> >>>
> >>>Evaluating the candidate signaling protocols and testing the
> >>>consensus of the WG on the best way to proceed will be
> >>>the major work item at the next IETF.
> >>>
> >>>Stewart/Danny"
> >>>
> >>>The above implies that *no* candidate signaling solution will be
> >>>adopted by the WG in the domain of MH-PWs till all the candidate
> >>>signaling protocols are discussed in the next IETF.
> >>>
> >>>So let us first discuss all the MH-PW signaling solutions
> >>>and the applicability of each before deciding which one to adopt and for
> >>>which set of requirements. Until then this draft or other drafts in the
> >>>MH-PW solution space, should not be adopted as WG documents.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>rahul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>- Stewart
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>pwe3 mailing list
> >>>>pwe3 at ietf.org
> >>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>pwe3 mailing list
> >>>pwe3 at ietf.org
> >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3