Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls)

Internet-Drafts | 1 Jun 2007 21:50

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-encaps-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: MPLS Multicast Encapsulations
	Author(s)	: T. Eckert, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-encaps-05.txt
	Pages		: 10
	Date		: 2007-6-1
	
RFC 3032 established two data link layer codepoints for MPLS: one to
   indicate that the data link layer frame is carrying an MPLS unicast
   packet, and the other to indicate that the data link layer frame is
   carrying an MPLS multicast packet.  This specification updates RFC
   3032 by redefining the meaning of these two codepoints.  The former
   "multicast codepoint" is now to be used only on multiaccess media,
   and it is to mean "the top label of the following label stack is an
   upstream-assigned label".  The former "unicast codepoint" is to be

   used in all other cases.  Whether the data link layer payload is a
   unicast MPLS packet or a multicast MPLS packet is now to be
   determined by looking up the top label, rather than by the codepoint.

   RFC 3032 does not specify the destination address to be placed in the
   "MAC DA" field of an ethernet frame which carries an MPLS multicast
   packet.  This document provides that specification.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-multicast-encaps-05.txt

(Continue reading)

headers

Fabien Leclercq | 5 Jun 2007 17:45

poll on draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt as wgdocument ?

Dear all,

We support this draft as a WG document with the following comments.

1- In Section 3: "Section 3" should be replaced by "Section 4" and "Section 4" should be replaced by "Section 5"

2- The sentence "as traditional layer two aggregation networks are being replaced by IP/MPLS networks" should be weakened by something like "in a significant number of cases traditional layers two aggregation networks are being replaced by IP/MPLS networks".

Cheers

Fabien

-----Message d'origine-----

De : Loa Andersson [mailto:loa <at> pi.se]

Envoyé : mardi 22 mai 2007 19:10

À : mpls <at> ietf.org

Cc : Ross Callon; David Ward

Objet : [mpls] poll on draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt as

wgdocument

Working Group,

the authors of draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt has requested that

the draft is made a working group document.

Send your comments (pros or cons) to the working group mailing list, or

directly to the working group co-chairs.

Loa and George

--

Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect

Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14

Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64

Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson <at> acreo.se

loa <at> pi.se

_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list

mpls <at> lists.ietf.org

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

headers

LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN | 5 Jun 2007 17:53

RE: poll on draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt aswgdocument ?

Hi Fabien,

Thanks for your support and comments.

We will account for them in next revision.

Best Regards,

JL

De : Fabien Leclercq [mailto:fabien.leclercq <at> rad-france.fr]
Envoyé : mardi 5 juin 2007 17:46
À : mpls <at> ietf.org
Cc : 'Yaakov Stein'
Objet : [mpls] poll on draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt aswgdocument ?

Dear all,

We support this draft as a WG document with the following comments.

1- In Section 3: "Section 3" should be replaced by "Section 4" and "Section 4" should be replaced by "Section 5"

2- The sentence "as traditional layer two aggregation networks are being replaced by IP/MPLS networks" should be weakened by something like "in a significant number of cases traditional layers two aggregation networks are being replaced by IP/MPLS networks".

Cheers

Fabien

-----Message d'origine-----

De : Loa Andersson [mailto:loa <at> pi.se]

Envoyé : mardi 22 mai 2007 19:10

À : mpls <at> ietf.org

Cc : Ross Callon; David Ward

Objet : [mpls] poll on draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt as

wgdocument

Working Group,

the authors of draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt has requested that

the draft is made a working group document.

Send your comments (pros or cons) to the working group mailing list, or

directly to the working group co-chairs.

Loa and George

--

Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect

Acreo AB                           phone: +46 8 632 77 14

Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64

Kista, Sweden                      email: loa.andersson <at> acreo.se

                                           loa <at> pi.se

_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list

mpls <at> lists.ietf.org

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

headers

Yaakov Stein | 6 Jun 2007 19:05

poll on draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt as wgdocument ?

I realize that technically I missed the date set by Loa,

but I was out of the office and without email access.

I just wanted to state my opinion, better late than never.

I see that most people (Luca, Kireeti, Cao Wei, Rekhter, etc) were

in favor. However, George and Eric Rosen are against.

Basically, George's comment focuses on the usefulness

as compared to simpler alternatives,

while Eric raises numerous operational issues.

I believe that

1) Eric is right - resource reductions may not be significant

if everything is taken into account

2) But the division between protocols will be changed.

IBGP could be used (I assume this is what George was talking about),

but this may not match every service provider's methods of operation.

3) If the whole issue is only important when there are tens of thousands

of PEs, then we need to hear more service providers with networks

of this size. Obviously, at least provider believes that this is very important.

4) I support the document becoming a WG document.

No one forces anyone to use it who doesn't need it,

or who wants to use some other mechanism.

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

headers

Loa Andersson | 11 Jun 2007 10:08

draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt accepted as wg document

Working Group,

we have good support to make draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt
a working group document.

Could the authors please re-publish the draft as
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-00.txt.

/Loa

Loa Andersson wrote:
> the poll will end June 5
> 
> /Loa
> 
> Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Working Group,
>>
>> the authors of draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt has
>> requested that the draft is made a working group document.
>>
>> Send your comments (pros or cons) to the working group
>> mailing list, or directly to the working group co-chairs.
>>
>> Loa and George
>>
> 
> 

--

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson <at> acreo.se
                                           loa <at> pi.se

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

headers

Loa Andersson | 11 Jun 2007 10:23

[Fwd: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 69th IETF Meeting in Chicago, IL, USA]

Working Group,

please be aware of the cut-off dates for publishing Internet-Drafts
before the Chicago-meeting.

/Loa

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Internet-Drafts Submission Cutoff Dates for the 69th IETF
Meeting in Chicago, IL, USA

There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 69th
IETF Meeting in Chicago, IL, USA:

July 2nd: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., version -00)
Internet-Draft Submissions

All initial Internet-Drafts (version -00) must be submitted by Monday,
July 2nd at 9:00 AM ET. As always, all initial submissions with a
filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be approved by the
appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced.  The
Secretariat would appreciate receiving WG Chair approval by Monday,
June 25th at 9:00 AM ET.

July 9th: Cutoff Date for Revised (i.e., version -01 and higher)
Internet-Draft Submissions

All revised Internet-Drafts (version -01 and higher) must be submitted
by Monday, July 9th at 9:00 AM ET.

Initial and revised Internet-Drafts received after their respective
cutoff dates will not be made available in the Internet-Drafts
directory or announced until on or after Monday, July 23rd at 9:00
AM ET, when Internet-Draft posting resumes.  Please do not wait until
the last minute to submit.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any
questions or concerns, then please send a message to
internet-drafts <at> ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

FYI: The Internet-Draft cutoff dates as well as other significant dates
for the 69th IETF Meeting can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_69.html.

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

--

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson <at> acreo.se
                                           loa <at> pi.se

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

headers

Loa Andersson | 11 Jun 2007 10:36

soliciting input for the mpls working group agenda in Chicago

Working Group,

the MPLS working group will meet in Chicago, curretnly we are scheduled
on Monday July 23 at 9.00am (the IETF agenda is still tentative).

It is time to start to put together the mpls wg agenda, please send
requests for slots on the agenda to the working group chairs.

/Loa and George

--

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson <at> acreo.se
                                           loa <at> pi.se

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

headers

KOMPELLA Vach | 6 Jun 2007 20:23

RE: poll on draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt as wgdocument

I guess I am also a little behind.  I had actually accidentally
implemented this, and only subsequently discovered that the route table
must have an exact match prefix for an address FEC signaled via LDP.

It's no biggie to implement.  I believe it will scale down the IGP, and
is a useful extension.

I'm in favor of the draft.

-Vach  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa <at> pi.se] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 7:28 AM
> To: mpls <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] poll on 
> draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt as wgdocument
> 
> the poll will end June 5
> 
> /Loa
> 
> Loa Andersson wrote:
> > Working Group,
> > 
> > the authors of draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt has 
> requested 
> > that the draft is made a working group document.
> > 
> > Send your comments (pros or cons) to the working group 
> mailing list, 
> > or directly to the working group co-chairs.
> > 
> > Loa and George
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> Loa Andersson
> 
> Principal Networking Architect
> Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
> Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
> Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson <at> acreo.se
>                                            loa <at> pi.se
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

headers

vivienne | 13 Jun 2007 03:26

One question about MAC Address Withdraw Message in RFC4762

Hi all,

I have one question about MAC Address Withdraw Message in RFC4762

RFC4762 say

We introduce an optional MAC List TLV in LDP to specify a list of MAC addresses that can be removed or unlearned using the LDP Address Withdraw Message.

And also say

The MAC Address Withdraw Message contains a FEC TLV (to identify the VPLS affected), a MAC Address TLV, and optional parameters. No optional parameters have been defined for the MAC Address Withdraw signaling.

This two segment is contradiction.

The first segment say that the MAC Address TLV is optional parameters. But the second segment impliedly say that the FEC TLV and the MAC Address TLV must be included .

Since the MAC Address Withdraw Message and Address Withdraw Message used the same message type (0x0301).

So my question is how to process the message which message type is 0x0301 and which TLV is mandatory when we parse this message .

Further question is,

If Address list TLV is mandatory .Then how to fill the Address list TLV for L2VPN, since the ip address is not usefule for L2VPN.

If Address list TLV is not mandatory .Then how to fill MAC Address Withdraw Message and Address Withdraw Message when this remote peer session is used not only for L2VPN but also for other application (for example TE).

Thanks and Regards

Vivienne

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

headers

Asaf Henig | 13 Jun 2007 07:29

RE: One question about MAC Address Withdraw Message in RFC4762

As I understand and according MRV implementation
both the FEC 128 or 129 and an Empty MAC list TLV are mandatory.

Attached is an ethereal file containing a single MAC withdraw message we send toward a PE-rs machine.
Regards
Asaf Henig
MRV communications.

-----Original Message-----
From: vivienne [mailto:wanglixing <at> huawei.com]
Sent: Wed 6/13/2007 4:26 AM
To: mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
Subject: [MPLS] One question about MAC Address Withdraw Message in RFC4762

??Hi all,

I have one question about MAC Address Withdraw Message in RFC4762

RFC4762 say

We introduce an optional MAC List TLV in LDP to specify a list of MAC addresses that can be removed or unlearned using the LDP Address Withdraw Message.

And also say

The MAC Address Withdraw Message contains a FEC TLV (to identify the VPLS affected), a MAC Address TLV, and optional parameters. No optional parameters have been defined for the MAC Address Withdraw signaling.

This two segment is contradiction.

The first segment say that the MAC Address TLV is optional parameters. But the second segment impliedly say that the FEC TLV and the MAC Address TLV must be included .

Since the MAC Address Withdraw Message and Address Withdraw Message used the same message type (0x0301).

So my question is how to process the message which message type is 0x0301 and which TLV is mandatory when we parse this message .

Further question is,

If Address list TLV is mandatory .Then how to fill the Address list TLV for L2VPN, since the ip address is not usefule for L2VPN.

If Address list TLV is not mandatory .Then how to fill MAC Address Withdraw Message and Address Withdraw Message when this remote peer session is used not only for L2VPN but also for other application (for example TE).

Thanks and Regards

Vivienne

Attachment (mac_withdrawal.dat): application/x-extension-dat, 144 bytes

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

109	May 2013
90	April 2013
148	March 2013
142	February 2013
184	January 2013
173	December 2012
167	November 2012
193	October 2012
72	September 2012
176	August 2012
226	July 2012
105	June 2012
83	May 2012
95	April 2012
216	March 2012
86	February 2012
100	January 2012
83	December 2011
149	November 2011
141	October 2011
120	September 2011
147	August 2011
303	July 2011
184	June 2011
247	May 2011
182	April 2011
229	March 2011
107	February 2011
148	January 2011
183	December 2010
145	November 2010
170	October 2010
56	September 2010
121	August 2010
217	July 2010
118	June 2010
114	May 2010
168	April 2010
319	March 2010
112	February 2010
92	January 2010
40	December 2009
77	November 2009
66	October 2009
40	September 2009
25	August 2009
56	July 2009
26	June 2009
22	May 2009
16	April 2009
90	March 2009
33	February 2009
18	January 2009
32	December 2008
85	November 2008
115	October 2008
91	September 2008
88	August 2008
63	July 2008
41	June 2008
69	May 2008
74	April 2008
49	March 2008
76	February 2008
29	January 2008
24	December 2007
46	November 2007
32	October 2007
47	September 2007
12	August 2007
44	July 2007
39	June 2007
42	May 2007
33	April 2007
64	March 2007
30	February 2007
49	January 2007
37	December 2006
70	November 2006
49	October 2006
69	September 2006
18	August 2006
36	July 2006
79	June 2006
48	May 2006
103	April 2006
26	March 2006
79	February 2006
29	January 2006
50	December 2005
31	November 2005
38	October 2005
32	September 2005
54	August 2005
37	July 2005
32	June 2005
42	May 2005
32	April 2005
58	March 2005
84	February 2005
26	January 2005
52	December 2004
63	November 2004
111	October 2004
46	September 2004
44	August 2004
34	July 2004
93	June 2004
121	May 2004
83	April 2004
133	March 2004
88	February 2004
82	January 2004
26	December 2003
227	November 2003
121	October 2003
82	September 2003
89	August 2003
118	July 2003
167	June 2003
86	May 2003
161	April 2003
396	March 2003
195	February 2003
164	January 2003
374	December 2002
221	November 2002
157	October 2002
102	September 2002
147	August 2002
435	July 2002
192	June 2002
277	May 2002
245	April 2002

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30