Subject: RE: Re: Re: RE: draft-lasserre-vkompella-ppvpn-vpls as working gr oup draft

From: "Vasile Radoaca" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:59:16 -0400

Ali,

 Let's consider the following relationships

 Many C-VLANs   - to one PVLAN -> one access domain
 many PVLANs    - to one VPLS instance

 I agree with Du Wenhua that suporting many PVLANs per one VPLS instance
 it is very valuable and it should not be restricted by your model.
 A PVLAN can be seen as an aggretae VPN member in the VPLS port, where 
 different polcies can be applied.

 However, I don't see in the draft how the PVLAN/CVLAN information is 
 sent in the Control plan, so the mapping and re-mapping in the access
 doamins can be done correctly. The current VFEC doesn't work for this
 type of access domain.

Cheers
   Vasile

-----Original Message-----
From: Ali Sajassi [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 7:40 PM
To: Du Wenhua; Ali Sajassi; Radoaca, Vasile [BL60:X624:EXCH]; Rick
Wilder
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: draft-lasserre-vkompella-ppvpn-vpls as working
group draft

>
> >1) Unqualified learning: all traffic from a given customer is tagged by
> >P-VLAN, so if a customer is connected to a given access network through
10
> >different ACs (and through several different MTU-s), then all those ACs
> >will be tagged by the same P-VLAN. The P-VLAN as mentioned before
> >corresponds to a single VPLS instance. Thus, all C-VLANs for a that
> >customer share the same MAC address domain and broadcast domain.
> >
> >2) Qualified learning: each C-VLAN is represented by a P-VLAN. Thus a
given
> >C-VLAN (e.g., VLAN-10) over different ACs maps into a unique P-VLAN
(e.g.,
> >VLAN-100) and that P-VLAN corresponds to a single VPLS instance.
> >
> >Therefore, in both cases, a single P-VLAN correspond to a single VPLS
> >instance and vise versa - e.g., one-to-one mapping.
> >
>
>No. You misunderstand my point. I'm not talking about learning, I'm 
>talking about value-add service, such as rate-limited, access list control.
>For learning,I agree with you, one P-VLAN to one VPLS-instance is enough. 
>But for value-add service, it is not enough, require many P-VLANs to one 
>VPLS-instance.

For unqualified learning, customer's VLANs are transparent to the SP. And 
as the matter of fact there is single MAC address domain and broadcast 
domain for all the VLAN of that customer. So what that means is the 
customer's MAC addresses need to be unique across all the VLANs or else 
unqualified learning would not work for that customer. So, given that all 
MAC addresses of a given customer are unique, then you can run ACL based on 
customer's MAC for that P-VLAN. If multi SLAs are needed for unqualified 
learning, then you simply copy the CoS bits of the inner tag to he outer 
tag and perform QoS on the P-VLAN tag.

The situation for qualified learning, should be clear since there is no 
outer-tag and P-VLAN is just a mapping of the C-VLAN.

If this is yet not clear to you, please clearly state the issue with an 
example.

-Ali

---

From: Ali Sajassi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 09:08:57 -0700

>  many PVLANs    - to one VPLS instance

As I said before, you can HAVE many PVLANs in different access domain 
mapping to the same VPLS (each access domain is independent from other 
access domains and thus each access domain can assign its own PVLAN 
independent from the others).
However, the issue was whether there can be many PVLANs in the same access 
domain mapping to a single VPLS instance. And the answer is NO.
As I have repeated many times, PVLAN is just a VPLS-id within a QinQ domain 
and thus there is a one-to-one relationship in a given access domain.

>  it is very valuable and it should not be restricted by your model.

There is no restriction in model what so ever !!! If you think there is, 
then elaborate !!

>  different polcies can be applied.

Are we talking about qualified and unqualified learning or something else !!!
unqualified learning is: one VPLS instance for all customer's traffic 
(tagged and untagged)
qualified learning is one VPLS instance per customer VLAN
and in both cases, the VPLS instance is represented by a P-VLAN (in each 
access domain). Now, what is the problem ???

>  doamins can be done correctly. The current VFEC doesn't work for this

PVLAN configuration is NOT the issue here. So please lets not convolute the 
issue at hand (PVLAN can easily be configured through NMS as it is done 
today).

-Ali

>From: Ali Sajassi [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]]
> > >P-VLAN, so if a customer is connected to a given access network 
> through 10