Subject: RE: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:53:45 +0200

Hi Eric  
  
As I understand it a requirement would be to have a full mesh of LDP
sessions between the PEs in the participating AS domains. This means
configuration of each PE when for example a new site is added to an
already existing VPN. If BGP is used this is not necessary as RRs can be
used, minimizing the configuration to the new PE and the RR.  
But perhaps there exist a solution similar to this for LDP as well? It
seems appealing to reuse the 2547bis structure we have also for VPLS if
it's possible.  
  
My point is that further investigation of the two different solutions
before rejecting one or the other would be good 

/Andreas

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: den 28 april 2003 16:29
To: Mattsson, Andreas A. /Research /08-713 81 86, 070-618 67 67
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt 

Andreas> I would  also like to  know how inter-AS  with the LDP  
Andreas> approach in lasserre-vkompella is to be solved.

Could you say what the issue is that you think needs to be solved?

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:25:48 +0200

Andres,

AFAIK there is no need to configure anything rather then a site
interface on the PEs. Autodiscovery will detect new addition and
propagate the news to all participants. Then in the lasserre-vkompella
scheme directed LDP if not already set get's automatically established
between parties. 

Of course the drawback here is that you need to keep LDP ports open wide
within inter-AS LDP src ranges which may or may not be an acceptable
issue :-).

R.

> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Hi Eric
>

---

From: "Mike Duckett \(Dotnet\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:02:01 -0400

To determine which approach is better, we need to have a generally accepted
problem definition (a.k.a., requirements).   With a robust set of present
and forward looking requirements, we can make better decisions.  Which draft
represents a consensus relative to L2VPN (PWS[Frame Relay, .,.,*],VPLS)
requirements?  Is draft-augustyn-ppvpn-l2vpn-requirements-00.txt
representative of the problem space?

I am personally interested in a solution (where the solution has a minimal
number of unique protocols) that not only addresses VPLS but also supports
many AC types (e.g,. Frame Relay) and robust capabilities
signalling/negotiation.  IOW, a solution optimized for VPLS that is not
suited for point to point is not desirable.  Step one should be gaining
agreement on requirements.  Should we move to accept a single or small
number of requirements documents?  Did I miss this event?

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 4:53 AM
Subject: RE: Support for draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt

Hi Eric

/Andreas

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 10:25:37 -0400

Andreas> As I  understand it a requirement would  be to have a  full mesh of
Andreas> LDP sessions between the PEs  in the participating AS domains. This
Andreas> means configuration of each PE when for example a new site is added
Andreas> to an already existing VPN. 

As Robert  has pointed  out, the auto-discovery  procedure (BGP,  Radius, or
whatever) would  dynamically produce the list  of PEs, and  the targeted LDP
sessions  would  then  be  created  automatically.   The  configuration  and
provisioning model  is exactly the  same in both  schemes, so this is  not a
reason to prefer one signaling protocol over another. 

You might want to look at draft-rosen-ppvpn-l2-signaling, which explains how
every  provisioning and  configuration  model we've  ever  discussed can  be
accommodated by point-to-point signaling.