[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PWE3] new draft - Extension to LDP-VPLS for Ethernetbroadcast &multicast

Broadcast, multicast and unknown unicast should all use P2MP PWs in case
of aggregate inclusive and selective trees and the learning should be
done over these trees (and P2MP PWs) and associate them with the
corresponding P2P PWs. 

Cheers,
Ali

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Olen Stokes
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 5:06 AM
> To: 'mngpl at singnet.com.sg'; Simon Delord
> Cc: l2vpn at ietf.org; pwe3
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] new draft - Extension to LDP-VPLS for
> Ethernetbroadcast &multicast
> 
> What is the reason that unknown unicast frames would not use the P2MP
> PWs?
> 
> Cheers,
> Olen
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: l2vpn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of mngpl at singnet.com.sg
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:20 AM
> To: Simon Delord
> Cc: l2vpn at ietf.org; pwe3
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] new draft - Extension to LDP-VPLS for Ethernet
> broadcast &multicast
> 
> Simon,
> 
> If this is the case, some kind of filter needs to ensure only
broadcast
> and multicast use the p2mp PW, while unicast and unknown unicast uses
> the p2p PW.
> 
> 
> /Max
> ---  wrote:
> Bonjour Thomas,
> 
> Our current thinking is that unknown unicast frames should behandled
as
> per RFC 4762 (e.g flooded on the P2P PWs). What do you think?
> 
> BTW, any feedback on the following two questions:
> 
> - whether there is a need to optimise Ethernet
> broadcast/multicasttraffic when using VPLS.
> 
> - whether carriers with LDP-VPLS (RFC 4762) would like to considera
> solution that does not require BGP.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 2010/3/8 Thomas Beckhaus <list_work at beckhaus-net.de>
> 
> >  Simon,
> >
> > your ID provides a solution for the efficient propagation ofEthernet
> > broadcast and multicast ethernet frames. Is there any reason, whyyou
> > have not mentioned the distribution of unknown unicasts via this
> > P2MPtree (the required MAC learning by the leaf is mentioned in your
> > ID) ?Or is it implicit by your understanding of "broadcast"?
> >
> > Thomas Beckhaus
> >
> >  ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Simon Delord <simon.delord at gmail.com>
> > *To:* l2vpn at ietf.org ; pwe3 <pwe3 at ietf.org>
> >   *Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:12 AM
> > *Subject:* [PWE3] new draft - Extension to LDP-VPLS for
> > Ethernetbroadcast &multicast
> >
> > Hi L2VPN & PWE3 workgroups,
> >
> > There is a new internet draft - Extension to LDP-VPLS forEthernet
> >broadcast and multicast (
> >*http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-
> exten
> >-00
> >*<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-delord-l2vpn-ldp-vpls-broadcast-
> exte
> >n-00>)
> > .
> >
> > Our proposed approach relies on a simple extension to LDP-VPLS
> > tooptimise Ethernet Multicast/Broadcast traffic within a carrier's
> > network.It allows the use of unidirectional point-to-multipoint
> > PseudoWires tominimise payload frame duplication on physical links.
> >
> > The authors would like to solicit comments from the workgroups.In
> > particular,
> >
> > - whether there is a need to optimise Ethernet
> > broadcast/multicasttraffic when using VPLS.
> >
> > - whether carriers with LDP-VPLS (RFC 4762) would like to considera
> > solution that does not require BGP.
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > pwe3 at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3