Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ppvpn-ce-based-02.txt

From: "Cheng-Yin Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Jul 2002 13:07:01 -0400

Eric,
Your suggestion that PE is manually configured is of course not desirable,
perhaps because you view configuration as manual configuration only?

As you suggested as well, creation of filters could be automated. This may be
viewed as auto-configuration of PEs, and perhaps the filter/CE addresses could
be obtained from the server  used for  CE auto-config. To  be able to continue
with a fruitful discussion, we need some kind of agreement or assumption on what
protocol or mechanism could be used for auto-discovery/config... So why don't
you suggest one that we could use for this discussion?

regards
cheng-yin

Eric Rosen wrote:

> Cheng-Yin>  a filter  for e.g. which  allows only tunneled traffic  to other
> Cheng-Yin>  CEs of the VPN may be configured on the PE as well.
>
> So  you are  proposing  that each  PE  be manually  configured  with the  IP
> addresses of all the CEs that are members of any VPN that is attached to it?
> I  hope  the  applicability  statement  discussed the  scalability  of  that
> procedure!  Also,  make sure  to indicate that  the PEs must  maintain state
> which is specific to the VPNs.
>
> A more reasonable approach would be  to have the PEs participate in some way
> in the auto-discovery  procedure, so that the creation  of the filters could
> be  automated.  I'm not  sure how  this would  be done,  given the  kinds of
> auto-discovery  procedures that are  discussed.  Even  so, that  would still
> eliminate the claim that the PEs have no per-VPN state.

---

From: "Andrew Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:03:04 -0700

I think this discussion is getting way beyond what the WG is chartered
to accomplish (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ppvpn-charter.html):

"The effort will produce a small number of approaches that are based on
collections of individual technologies that already exist (see below for
specifics). The goal is to foster interoperability among implementations
of a specific approach. Standardization of specific approaches will be
gauged on (I)SP support. Note that it is not a goal of this WG to
develop new protocols or extend existing ones. Rather, the purpose is to
document and identify gaps and shortcomings in individual approaches
with regards to the requirements. In the case that specific work items
are identified, such work will be done in an appropriate WG. Taking on
specific protocol work items in this WG will require rechartering."

Andrew Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Cheng-Yin Lee
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ppvpn-ce-based-02.txt

Eric,
Your suggestion that PE is manually configured is of course not
desirable, perhaps because you view configuration as manual
configuration only?

As you suggested as well, creation of filters could be automated. This
may be viewed as auto-configuration of PEs, and perhaps the filter/CE
addresses could be obtained from the server  used for  CE auto-config.
To  be able to continue with a fruitful discussion, we need some kind of
agreement or assumption on what protocol or mechanism could be used for
auto-discovery/config... So why don't you suggest one that we could use
for this discussion?

regards
cheng-yin

Eric Rosen wrote:

> Cheng-Yin>  a filter  for e.g. which  allows only tunneled traffic  to

> Cheng-Yin> other  CEs of the VPN may be configured on the PE as well.
>
> So  you are  proposing  that each  PE  be manually  configured  with 
> the  IP addresses of all the CEs that are members of any VPN that is 
> attached to it? I  hope  the  applicability  statement  discussed the

> scalability  of  that procedure!  Also,  make sure  to indicate that  
> the PEs must  maintain state which is specific to the VPNs.
>
> A more reasonable approach would be  to have the PEs participate in 
> some way in the auto-discovery  procedure, so that the creation  of 
> the filters could be  automated.  I'm not  sure how  this would  be 
> done,  given the  kinds of auto-discovery  procedures that are  
> discussed.  Even  so, that  would still eliminate the claim that the 
> PEs have no per-VPN state.