Internet-Drafts | 1 Jun 21:50 2007
Picon

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)

Fabien Leclercq | 5 Jun 17:45 2007
Picon

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

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
Yaakov Stein | 6 Jun 19:05 2007

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
Loa Andersson | 11 Jun 10:08 2007
Picon

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

Loa Andersson | 11 Jun 10:23 2007
Picon

[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

Loa Andersson | 11 Jun 10:36 2007
Picon

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

KOMPELLA Vach | 6 Jun 20:23 2007

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

vivienne | 13 Jun 03:26 2007

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
Asaf Henig | 13 Jun 07:29 2007

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

Gmane