Ignacio Goyret | 13 Mar 18:16 2009

draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-02.txt

Hi,
A few comments on the circuit-extensions draft:

1) Since this draft adds some new bits, including an
   "Standby" bit that affects the data plane, would it
   make sense to add a bit to request a remote loop?
   (ie, ask the remote LCCE to send all packets received
   over the L2TP tunnel back to the sender LCCE)

   Mmm, come to think of it, this may be the wrong AVP
   for that kind of function.

2) Besides updating RFC3931, this draft is also implicitly
   updating 4591, as well as 4349, 4454 and 4719.

   The new bits and the effect on the N-bit are applicable
   to all protocols, right?

   If so, RFC4591 should probably be moved to the normative
   section of the references, and the others should be added.

That's all I have.

I'd like to start a WGLC on this document but,
with IETF74 so close, we should wait until after
the meeting.

In the meantime, please, take the time to read this
document: it is an easy read.

(Continue reading)

Carlos Pignataro | 14 Mar 02:45 2009
X-Face
Picon

[Fwd: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw WG last call]

WG,

This draft was just WG last called in PWE3. It contains sections about
L2TPv3 PWs, and is therefore of interest to L2tpext. Although the
working group last call just ended, I'd assume comments are welcome (and
in any case could be considered IETF LC comments if the document
progresses before getting comments to pwe3).

Please review this document if you can, and send comments to pwe3
<pwe3 <at> ietf.org>.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw WG last call
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:46:20 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant <at> cisco.com>
Reply-To: stbryant <at> cisco.com
To: pwe3 <pwe3 <at> ietf.org>
CC: draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw <at> tools.ietf.org

This is the start of working group last call on

draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-11.txt

This draft can be found at

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-11.txt
(Continue reading)

Carlos Pignataro | 14 Mar 02:46 2009
X-Face
Picon

[Fwd: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03.txt WG last call]

WG,

Another document of interest to L2tpext, currently in WGLC in PWE3. It
provides extensions to RFC5085, including to L2TPv3.

Please review this document if you can, and send review comments to pwe3
<pwe3 <at> ietf.org>.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03.txt WG last call
Date: 	Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:08:53 +0100
From: 	BOCCI Matthew <Matthew.Bocci <at> alcatel-lucent.com>
To: 	<pwe3 <at> ietf.org>

This is the start of working group last call on
draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03.txt

This draft can be found at:

_http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03.txt_

The last call will close on Monday 6th April 2009.

Please read the document and provide feedback to the PWE3 list.

Many thanks to the following, who have also kindly agreed to review the
(Continue reading)

Carlos Pignataro | 14 Mar 02:51 2009
X-Face
Picon

Re: draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-02.txt

Hi Ignacio,

Many thanks for the comments, please see inline.

On 3/13/2009 1:16 PM, Ignacio Goyret wrote:
> Hi,
> A few comments on the circuit-extensions draft:
> 
> 1) Since this draft adds some new bits, including an
>    "Standby" bit that affects the data plane, would it
>    make sense to add a bit to request a remote loop?
>    (ie, ask the remote LCCE to send all packets received
>    over the L2TP tunnel back to the sender LCCE)
> 
>    Mmm, come to think of it, this may be the wrong AVP
>    for that kind of function.

This is a very interesting suggestion; I tend yo agree with your
conclusion though.

I think that such loopback capability likely requires more fields than a
single bit (e.g., type of loop, direction, all dataplane packets versus
only some packets, some locking mechanism, etc.). It would likely need
its own AVP and separate definition.

> 
> 2) Besides updating RFC3931, this draft is also implicitly
>    updating 4591, as well as 4349, 4454 and 4719.

This is a great point. I checked and I don't think there's other RFC
(Continue reading)

Internet-Drafts | 23 Mar 17:45 2009
Picon

I-D Action:draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-03.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : L2TPv3 Extended Circuit Status Values
	Author(s)       : N. McGill, C. Pignataro
	Filename        : draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-03.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2009-03-23

This document defines additional Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3
(L2TPv3) bit values to be used within the "Circuit Status" Attribute
Value Pair (AVP) to communicate more granular error states for
Attachment Circuits (ACs) and Pseudowires (PWs).  It also generalizes
the Active bit and deprecates the use of the New bit in the "Circuit
Status" AVP, updating RFC3931, RFC4349, RFC4454, RFC4591, and
RFC4719.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Ignacio Goyret | 23 Mar 21:26 2009

Anyone at IETF74?

I'm at IETF 74 all week.

If there is anyone here that wants to meet me,
drop me a personal email (not to the list, please!).

-Ignacio
Ignacio Goyret | 23 Mar 21:23 2009

WGLC on draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions

Hi all,

This is the start of a Working Group Last Call on the
"L2TPv3 Extended Circuit Status Values",
draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions.

The current version of this document can be found here
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-03.txt

Since we are in the midst of an IETF meeting, I'll extend
the usual 2-week comment period to Friday April 10th, 2009.

Please, review the document and send your comments to the list.

Thanks,
-Ignacio

Gmane