Subject: RE: L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 21

From: "Sam Cao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:51:20 +0800

We discussed several rounds on this before. As I know, Dual-VLAN needs to
confirm the following cases first,

1) Wait for confirmation or comments from chip vendors; 
2) Use Global VLAN ID. If so, Yuanlong and other co-authors would better
update draft first.

For me, if support E-Tree in MPLS network, Multi-PW is better solution; if
also support E-Tree in eth-only network, maybe Dual-VLAN is better. My
question is, is "E-tree support in Eth-only network" real requirement from
carrier?

In addition, I also figured some disadvantages of Dual-VLAN out before. Till
now I did not get positive responses from Yuanlong or other co-authors.

Wish chairs push this forward and reach agreements soon ^_^.

Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 1:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 21

If you have received this digest without all the individual message
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
subscription.  To do so, go to 

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn

Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option
globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.

Send L2vpn mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of L2vpn digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution? (Sam Cao)
   2. RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution? (Sam Cao)
   3. RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?
      (Jiangyuanlong)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:59:42 +0800
From: "Sam Cao" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Daniel Cohn'" <[email-masked]>, "'Lucy yong'"
	<[email-masked]>,	"'Rogers, Josh'" <[email-masked]>,
	"'Henderickx, Wim \(Wim\)'" <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
	[email-masked],	[email-masked],
	[email-masked],	[email-masked]
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?
Message-ID: <D2C8CBEB93F748B3953AB53168D03266@v2comsam>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

[YL] two PW approach makes VPLS transport construction and packet forwarding
more complex, I can see potential backward compatibility issues with 2 PW
solution.
[Sam] Dual-PW approach uses 2 PW labels to identify frames if need. After
decapsulation (stripe PW label out), bridge will forward the frame to
corresponding ACs with frame type [input, identified by PW label]; Dual-VLAN
approach uses VLAN-ID to identify frames, so after decapsulation, bridge
will stripe S-VLAN ID out then forward the frame to corresponding ACs (We
should integrate S-VLAN ID pop operation into bridge, I think). Considering
forwarding process, both work in similar way. The difference is, Dual-VLAN
approach needs one more POP operation. So, I think Dual-VLAN is a little
complex, maybe not much.

In addition, Dual-PW approach has considered backward compatibility. Please
let us know if we miss something.

BTW, Dual-PW or Dual-VLAN is good solution if there is one or more
Root-Leaf-Mixed PE in E-Tree domain. Mostly there are Root-only and
Leaf-Only in an E-Tree domain, current solutions have supported, but
configuration is complex. Dual-VLAN still uses traditional configuration,
but Dual-PW approach does NOT setup PW between Leaf-only PEs, so Dual-PW
approach breaks communication between Leaf-Only PEs natively, but Dual-VLAN
can not.

Regards,
 
Yuqun (Sam) Cao
E-mail: [email-masked] 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Cohn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Lucy yong; Rogers, Josh; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Sam Cao
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Adding Sam (as l2vpn@ is holding messages)

DC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy yong [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:39 AM
To: Daniel Cohn; Rogers, Josh; Henderickx, Wim (Wim);
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Snipped,

As we discussed extensively in the list, and as reflected in giles
slide, 2 pws are only needed between pes with both root and leaf acs,
which will typically be a small minority.
[[LY]] Don't know if the assumption is true. Even it is the case, both
approaches can benefit from it. I was off for a while and captures some
discussions now. 

Also as per giles slide, dual vlan can have scalability issues due to
additional lookup and double use of vlans in internal emulated lan
interface. Also there are potential backward compatibility issues with
silicon that doesn't support vlan mapping.
[[LY]] I was not in IETF83 meeting and wait on the meeting minutes. I am
not clear on all the issues. Could you be more specific? As I mentioned
in below, two PW approach makes VPLS transport construction and packet
forwarding more complex, I can see potential backward compatibility
issues with 2 PW solution. 

Regards,
Lucy

Regards,

Daniel

Thumb typed - please be tolerant

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

In my mind, the VLAN approach means dual vlan method.

The main concern for CW approach is hardware support.

Two PW approach can be complex too if the VPLS instance for E-Tree uses
P2P PW for unicast traffic and P2MP PW for broadcast and unknown unicast
traffic, and some P2MP PWs for multicast traffic. It may double all of
them.

E-tree is an Ethernet service and there is already VLAN based solution
in IEEE, can we just utilize it without complicating VPLS transport
construction? This also makes interworking with Eth only network easier.

Cheers,
Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Josh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

I believe the initial question was in regard to the CW method.  Are you
saying that you no longer are interested in that method in preference of
the dual vlan method?

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

Agree with Wim. VLAN approach is the best solution for E-Tree.

Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:03 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

The vlan approach is superior as it also works for eth only networks,
etc. On top some vendors indicate hw issues with the cw approach. As
such we have dropped more or less the cw approach.

Cheers,
Wim
_________________
sent from blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: Giles Heron [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 08:22 AM
To: Simon Delord <[email-masked]>; Alexander Vainshtein
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Vladimir Kleiner
<[email-masked]>; Andrew Sergeev
<[email-masked]>; Idan Kaspit <[email-masked]>;
Mishael Wexler <[email-masked]>; Rotem Cohen
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Sorry - the "anonymous presentation" was mine.  I should possibly have
put in a third column on the CW approach.  And hopefully the minutes
will be posted soon.

We had various discussions, as Simon stated, and consensus seemed to be
forming around the two alternatives of two PWEs or two VLANs.  I believe
three of the authors of the CW approach are also authors of the two VLAN
approach and one is also an author of the two PWE approach. So perhaps
it's best to let those four individuals say which approach they prefer
and why?

Giles

On 10/04/2012 00:45, "Simon Delord" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Alexander,
>
> You are right, no discussion on the WG mailing list recently, but 
> there have been substantial discussions among the authors of various 
> solution drafts off the mailing list. As far as I know, no consensus 
> yet before ietf83, not sure the progress in the Paris WG meeting. I 
> think the CW approach has not been rejected by the WG yet, or the WG 
> has not yet decided on which one to adopt.
>
> Simon
>
> 2012/4/8 Alexander Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
>
>>  Hi all,
>>
>> Unfortunately I have not been able to attend the Paris IETF.
>>
>> However, looking up the L2VPN proceedings, I've found a short 
>> anonymous presentation called "E-Tree Update"  ( 
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-l2vpn-1.pptx). 
>> This presentation discusses the differences of the E-Tree approaches 
>> based on dedicated VLANs (as in
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cao-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_t
>> ext=1) and multiple PWs between the PEs (as in 
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ram-l2vpn-etree-multiple-pw/?in
>> clude_te
>> xt=1)
>> and completely ignores the solution based on usage of the CW in the 
>> PWs connecting the PEs (as in
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_t
>> ext=1
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>> The Minutes of the Paris L2VPN session are not yet available, but I 
>> wonder whether the WG has taken a decision to reject the approach 
>> based on the CW usage? I do not remember any recent discussion of 
>> this topic on the WG mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
>>
>> Sasha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains 
>> information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI

>> Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please 
>> inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and 
>> all copies thereof.
>>

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:13:50 +0800
From: "Sam Cao" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Daniel Cohn'" <[email-masked]>, "'Lucy yong'"
	<[email-masked]>,	"'Rogers, Josh'" <[email-masked]>,
	"'Henderickx, Wim \(Wim\)'" <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
	<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
	[email-masked],	[email-masked],
	[email-masked],	[email-masked]
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?
Message-ID: <CC7F0D22AFCC4086A33D4729470699D2@v2comsam>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Yes, 2 pws are only needed between pes with both root and leaf acs after
improving Dual-PW approach. If consider P2MP, Dual-PW approach setup 2 P2MP
PWs if need. There is no difference between P2MP or normal PW setup. But,
can Leaf-ACs be bound to Root PE of P2MP PW? 

Regards,
 
Yuqun (Sam) Cao
E-mail: [email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Cohn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Lucy yong; Rogers, Josh; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Sam Cao
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Adding Sam (as l2vpn@ is holding messages)

DC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy yong [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:39 AM
To: Daniel Cohn; Rogers, Josh; Henderickx, Wim (Wim);
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Snipped,

As we discussed extensively in the list, and as reflected in giles
slide, 2 pws are only needed between pes with both root and leaf acs,
which will typically be a small minority.
[[LY]] Don't know if the assumption is true. Even it is the case, both
approaches can benefit from it. I was off for a while and captures some
discussions now. 

Also as per giles slide, dual vlan can have scalability issues due to
additional lookup and double use of vlans in internal emulated lan
interface. Also there are potential backward compatibility issues with
silicon that doesn't support vlan mapping.
[[LY]] I was not in IETF83 meeting and wait on the meeting minutes. I am
not clear on all the issues. Could you be more specific? As I mentioned
in below, two PW approach makes VPLS transport construction and packet
forwarding more complex, I can see potential backward compatibility
issues with 2 PW solution. 

Regards,
Lucy

Regards,

Daniel

Thumb typed - please be tolerant

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

In my mind, the VLAN approach means dual vlan method.

The main concern for CW approach is hardware support.

Two PW approach can be complex too if the VPLS instance for E-Tree uses
P2P PW for unicast traffic and P2MP PW for broadcast and unknown unicast
traffic, and some P2MP PWs for multicast traffic. It may double all of
them.

E-tree is an Ethernet service and there is already VLAN based solution
in IEEE, can we just utilize it without complicating VPLS transport
construction? This also makes interworking with Eth only network easier.

Cheers,
Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Josh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

I believe the initial question was in regard to the CW method.  Are you
saying that you no longer are interested in that method in preference of
the dual vlan method?

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

Agree with Wim. VLAN approach is the best solution for E-Tree.

Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:03 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

The vlan approach is superior as it also works for eth only networks,
etc. On top some vendors indicate hw issues with the cw approach. As
such we have dropped more or less the cw approach.

Cheers,
Wim
_________________
sent from blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: Giles Heron [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 08:22 AM
To: Simon Delord <[email-masked]>; Alexander Vainshtein
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Vladimir Kleiner
<[email-masked]>; Andrew Sergeev
<[email-masked]>; Idan Kaspit <[email-masked]>;
Mishael Wexler <[email-masked]>; Rotem Cohen
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Sorry - the "anonymous presentation" was mine.  I should possibly have
put in a third column on the CW approach.  And hopefully the minutes
will be posted soon.

We had various discussions, as Simon stated, and consensus seemed to be
forming around the two alternatives of two PWEs or two VLANs.  I believe
three of the authors of the CW approach are also authors of the two VLAN
approach and one is also an author of the two PWE approach. So perhaps
it's best to let those four individuals say which approach they prefer
and why?

Giles

On 10/04/2012 00:45, "Simon Delord" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Alexander,
>
> You are right, no discussion on the WG mailing list recently, but 
> there have been substantial discussions among the authors of various 
> solution drafts off the mailing list. As far as I know, no consensus 
> yet before ietf83, not sure the progress in the Paris WG meeting. I 
> think the CW approach has not been rejected by the WG yet, or the WG 
> has not yet decided on which one to adopt.
>
> Simon
>
> 2012/4/8 Alexander Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
>
>>  Hi all,
>>
>> Unfortunately I have not been able to attend the Paris IETF.
>>
>> However, looking up the L2VPN proceedings, I've found a short 
>> anonymous presentation called "E-Tree Update"  ( 
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-l2vpn-1.pptx). 
>> This presentation discusses the differences of the E-Tree approaches 
>> based on dedicated VLANs (as in
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cao-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_t
>> ext=1) and multiple PWs between the PEs (as in 
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ram-l2vpn-etree-multiple-pw/?in
>> clude_te
>> xt=1)
>> and completely ignores the solution based on usage of the CW in the 
>> PWs connecting the PEs (as in
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_t
>> ext=1
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>> The Minutes of the Paris L2VPN session are not yet available, but I 
>> wonder whether the WG has taken a decision to reject the approach 
>> based on the CW usage? I do not remember any recent discussion of 
>> this topic on the WG mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
>>
>> Sasha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains 
>> information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI

>> Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please 
>> inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and 
>> all copies thereof.
>>

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:38:10 +0000
From: Jiangyuanlong <[email-masked]>
To: Daniel Cohn <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?
Message-ID:
	
<[email-masked]>
	
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Daniel,

Please see my comments inline.

Regards
Yuanlong

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:08:02 +0300
From: "Daniel Cohn" <[email-masked]>
To: "Lucy yong" <[email-masked]>, "Rogers, Josh"
        <[email-masked]>,      "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)"
        <[email-masked]>,    <[email-masked]>,
        <[email-masked]>,       <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked],     [email-masked],
        [email-masked],     [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="utf-8"

Hi lucy,

As we discussed extensively in the list, and as reflected in giles slide, 2
pws are only needed between pes with both root and leaf acs, which will
typically be a small minority.
[YL] For a PE with only leaf ACs and a PE with both root and leaf ACs, do
you really think only 1 PW is needed? if so, should it be a root PW or a
leaf PW? 

Also as per giles slide, dual vlan can have scalability issues due to
additional lookup and double use of vlans in internal emulated lan
interface. Also there are potential backward compatibility issues with
silicon that doesn't support vlan mapping.
[YL] Dual VLAN may have scalability concerns only when the PE can only
support a single global VLAN space, not sure a VLAN lookup at the port has
any scalability issue. 
[YL] If VLAN mapping can not be supported by the PE, global VLAN may be used
instead.

Regards,

Daniel

Thumb typed - please be tolerant

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

In my mind, the VLAN approach means dual vlan method.

The main concern for CW approach is hardware support.

Two PW approach can be complex too if the VPLS instance for E-Tree uses P2P
PW for unicast traffic and P2MP PW for broadcast and unknown unicast
traffic, and some P2MP PWs for multicast traffic. It may double all of them.

E-tree is an Ethernet service and there is already VLAN based solution in
IEEE, can we just utilize it without complicating VPLS transport
construction? This also makes interworking with Eth only network easier.

Cheers,
Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Josh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

I believe the initial question was in regard to the CW method.  Are you
saying that you no longer are interested in that method in preference of the
dual vlan method?

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

Agree with Wim. VLAN approach is the best solution for E-Tree.

Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:03 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

The vlan approach is superior as it also works for eth only networks, etc.
On top some vendors indicate hw issues with the cw approach. As such we have
dropped more or less the cw approach.

Cheers,
Wim
_________________
sent from blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: Giles Heron [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 08:22 AM
To: Simon Delord <[email-masked]>; Alexander Vainshtein
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Vladimir Kleiner
<[email-masked]>; Andrew Sergeev <[email-masked]>;
Idan Kaspit <[email-masked]>; Mishael Wexler
<[email-masked]>; Rotem Cohen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Sorry - the "anonymous presentation" was mine.  I should possibly have put
in a third column on the CW approach.  And hopefully the minutes will be
posted soon.

We had various discussions, as Simon stated, and consensus seemed to be
forming around the two alternatives of two PWEs or two VLANs.  I believe
three of the authors of the CW approach are also authors of the two VLAN
approach and one is also an author of the two PWE approach. So perhaps it's
best to let those four individuals say which approach they prefer and why?

Giles

On 10/04/2012 00:45, "Simon Delord" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Alexander,
>
> You are right, no discussion on the WG mailing list recently, but there
> have been substantial discussions among the authors of various solution
> drafts off the mailing list. As far as I know, no consensus yet before
> ietf83, not sure the progress in the Paris WG meeting. I think the CW
> approach has not been rejected by the WG yet, or the WG has not yet
decided
> on which one to adopt.
>
> Simon
>
> 2012/4/8 Alexander Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
>
>>  Hi all,
>>
>> Unfortunately I have not been able to attend the Paris IETF.
>>
>> However, looking up the L2VPN proceedings, I've found a short anonymous
>> presentation called "E-Tree Update"  (
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-l2vpn-1.pptx). This
>> presentation discusses the differences of the E-Tree approaches based on
>> dedicated VLANs (as in
>>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cao-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_text=1)
>> and multiple PWs between the PEs (as in
>>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ram-l2vpn-etree-multiple-pw/?include_t
e
>> xt=1)
>> and completely ignores the solution based on usage of the CW in the PWs
>> connecting the PEs (as in
>>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_text=1
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>> The Minutes of the Paris L2VPN session are not yet available, but I
wonder
>> whether the WG has taken a decision to reject the approach based on the
CW
>> usage? I do not remember any recent discussion of this topic on the WG
>> mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
>>
>> Sasha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
>> information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI
>> Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform
us
>> by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies
>> thereof.
>>

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this
E-mail and any printout.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:38:51 +0000
From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
To: Daniel Cohn <[email-masked]>, "Rogers, Josh"
        <[email-masked]>, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)"
        <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
        <[email-masked]>,        "[email-masked]"
        <[email-masked]>,       "[email-masked]"
        <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,  "[email-masked]"
        <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
        <[email-masked]>,   "[email-masked]"
        <[email-masked]>,      "[email-masked]"
        <[email-masked]>,   "[email-masked]"
        <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?
Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D3264A1C0@dfweml505-mbx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Snipped,

As we discussed extensively in the list, and as reflected in giles slide, 2
pws are only needed between pes with both root and leaf acs, which will
typically be a small minority.
[[LY]] Don't know if the assumption is true. Even it is the case, both
approaches can benefit from it. I was off for a while and captures some
discussions now.

Also as per giles slide, dual vlan can have scalability issues due to
additional lookup and double use of vlans in internal emulated lan
interface. Also there are potential backward compatibility issues with
silicon that doesn't support vlan mapping.
[[LY]] I was not in IETF83 meeting and wait on the meeting minutes. I am not
clear on all the issues. Could you be more specific? As I mentioned in
below, two PW approach makes VPLS transport construction and packet
forwarding more complex, I can see potential backward compatibility issues
with 2 PW solution.

Regards,
Lucy

Regards,

Daniel

Thumb typed - please be tolerant

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

In my mind, the VLAN approach means dual vlan method.

The main concern for CW approach is hardware support.

Two PW approach can be complex too if the VPLS instance for E-Tree uses P2P
PW for unicast traffic and P2MP PW for broadcast and unknown unicast
traffic, and some P2MP PWs for multicast traffic. It may double all of them.

E-tree is an Ethernet service and there is already VLAN based solution in
IEEE, can we just utilize it without complicating VPLS transport
construction? This also makes interworking with Eth only network easier.

Cheers,
Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Josh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

I believe the initial question was in regard to the CW method.  Are you
saying that you no longer are interested in that method in preference of the
dual vlan method?

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

Agree with Wim. VLAN approach is the best solution for E-Tree.

Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:03 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

The vlan approach is superior as it also works for eth only networks, etc.
On top some vendors indicate hw issues with the cw approach. As such we have
dropped more or less the cw approach.

Cheers,
Wim
_________________
sent from blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: Giles Heron [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 08:22 AM
To: Simon Delord <[email-masked]>; Alexander Vainshtein
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Vladimir Kleiner
<[email-masked]>; Andrew Sergeev <[email-masked]>;
Idan Kaspit <[email-masked]>; Mishael Wexler
<[email-masked]>; Rotem Cohen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Sorry - the "anonymous presentation" was mine.  I should possibly have put
in a third column on the CW approach.  And hopefully the minutes will be
posted soon.

We had various discussions, as Simon stated, and consensus seemed to be
forming around the two alternatives of two PWEs or two VLANs.  I believe
three of the authors of the CW approach are also authors of the two VLAN
approach and one is also an author of the two PWE approach. So perhaps it's
best to let those four individuals say which approach they prefer and why?

Giles

On 10/04/2012 00:45, "Simon Delord" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Alexander,
>
> You are right, no discussion on the WG mailing list recently, but there
> have been substantial discussions among the authors of various solution
> drafts off the mailing list. As far as I know, no consensus yet before
> ietf83, not sure the progress in the Paris WG meeting. I think the CW
> approach has not been rejected by the WG yet, or the WG has not yet
decided
> on which one to adopt.
>
> Simon
>
> 2012/4/8 Alexander Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
>
>>  Hi all,
>>
>> Unfortunately I have not been able to attend the Paris IETF.
>>
>> However, looking up the L2VPN proceedings, I've found a short anonymous
>> presentation called "E-Tree Update"  (
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-l2vpn-1.pptx). This
>> presentation discusses the differences of the E-Tree approaches based on
>> dedicated VLANs (as in
>>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cao-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_text=1)
>> and multiple PWs between the PEs (as in
>>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ram-l2vpn-etree-multiple-pw/?include_t
e
>> xt=1)
>> and completely ignores the solution based on usage of the CW in the PWs
>> connecting the PEs (as in
>>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_text=1
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>> The Minutes of the Paris L2VPN session are not yet available, but I
wonder
>> whether the WG has taken a decision to reject the approach based on the
CW
>> usage? I do not remember any recent discussion of this topic on the WG
>> mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
>>
>> Sasha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
>> information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI
>> Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform
us
>> by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies
>> thereof.
>>

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this
E-mail and any printout.

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:56:29 +0300
From: "Daniel Cohn" <[email-masked]>
To: "Lucy yong" <[email-masked]>, "Rogers, Josh"
        <[email-masked]>,      "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)"
        <[email-masked]>,    <[email-masked]>,
        <[email-masked]>,       <[email-masked]>,
"Sam
        Cao" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked],     [email-masked],
        [email-masked],     [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?
Message-ID: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307510E14@tlvmail1>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"

Adding Sam (as l2vpn@ is holding messages)

DC

-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy yong [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:39 AM
To: Daniel Cohn; Rogers, Josh; Henderickx, Wim (Wim);
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Snipped,

As we discussed extensively in the list, and as reflected in giles
slide, 2 pws are only needed between pes with both root and leaf acs,
which will typically be a small minority.
[[LY]] Don't know if the assumption is true. Even it is the case, both
approaches can benefit from it. I was off for a while and captures some
discussions now.

Also as per giles slide, dual vlan can have scalability issues due to
additional lookup and double use of vlans in internal emulated lan
interface. Also there are potential backward compatibility issues with
silicon that doesn't support vlan mapping.
[[LY]] I was not in IETF83 meeting and wait on the meeting minutes. I am
not clear on all the issues. Could you be more specific? As I mentioned
in below, two PW approach makes VPLS transport construction and packet
forwarding more complex, I can see potential backward compatibility
issues with 2 PW solution.

Regards,
Lucy

Regards,

Daniel

Thumb typed - please be tolerant

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

In my mind, the VLAN approach means dual vlan method.

The main concern for CW approach is hardware support.

Two PW approach can be complex too if the VPLS instance for E-Tree uses
P2P PW for unicast traffic and P2MP PW for broadcast and unknown unicast
traffic, and some P2MP PWs for multicast traffic. It may double all of
them.

E-tree is an Ethernet service and there is already VLAN based solution
in IEEE, can we just utilize it without complicating VPLS transport
construction? This also makes interworking with Eth only network easier.

Cheers,
Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: Rogers, Josh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:35 AM
To: Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

I believe the initial question was in regard to the CW method.  Are you
saying that you no longer are interested in that method in preference of
the dual vlan method?

Lucy yong <[email-masked]> wrote:

Agree with Wim. VLAN approach is the best solution for E-Tree.

Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:03 AM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

The vlan approach is superior as it also works for eth only networks,
etc. On top some vendors indicate hw issues with the cw approach. As
such we have dropped more or less the cw approach.

Cheers,
Wim
_________________
sent from blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: Giles Heron [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 08:22 AM
To: Simon Delord <[email-masked]>; Alexander Vainshtein
<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Vladimir Kleiner
<[email-masked]>; Andrew Sergeev
<[email-masked]>; Idan Kaspit <[email-masked]>;
Mishael Wexler <[email-masked]>; Rotem Cohen
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The status of the approaches to the E-Tree solution?

Sorry - the "anonymous presentation" was mine.  I should possibly have
put in a third column on the CW approach.  And hopefully the minutes
will be posted soon.

We had various discussions, as Simon stated, and consensus seemed to be
forming around the two alternatives of two PWEs or two VLANs.  I believe
three of the authors of the CW approach are also authors of the two VLAN
approach and one is also an author of the two PWE approach. So perhaps
it's best to let those four individuals say which approach they prefer
and why?

Giles

On 10/04/2012 00:45, "Simon Delord" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Alexander,
>
> You are right, no discussion on the WG mailing list recently, but
> there have been substantial discussions among the authors of various
> solution drafts off the mailing list. As far as I know, no consensus
> yet before ietf83, not sure the progress in the Paris WG meeting. I
> think the CW approach has not been rejected by the WG yet, or the WG
> has not yet decided on which one to adopt.
>
> Simon
>
> 2012/4/8 Alexander Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
>
>>  Hi all,
>>
>> Unfortunately I have not been able to attend the Paris IETF.
>>
>> However, looking up the L2VPN proceedings, I've found a short
>> anonymous presentation called "E-Tree Update"  (
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-l2vpn-1.pptx).
>> This presentation discusses the differences of the E-Tree approaches
>> based on dedicated VLANs (as in
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cao-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_t
>> ext=1) and multiple PWs between the PEs (as in
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ram-l2vpn-etree-multiple-pw/?in
>> clude_te
>> xt=1)
>> and completely ignores the solution based on usage of the CW in the
>> PWs connecting the PEs (as in
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree/?include_t
>> ext=1
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>> The Minutes of the Paris L2VPN session are not yet available, but I
>> wonder whether the WG has taken a decision to reject the approach
>> based on the CW usage? I do not remember any recent discussion of
>> this topic on the WG mailing list.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
>>
>> Sasha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
>> information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI

>> Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please
>> inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and
>> all copies thereof.
>>

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject
to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken
in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
L2vpn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn

End of L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 20
*************************************

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
L2vpn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn

End of L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 21
*************************************