Subject: RE: On BGP and VPLS

From: "Rick Wilder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:55:08 -0400

Kireeti,

Regarding the last part of your message, the working group chairs have
been asked to hold off of declarations of consensus on drafts in the
wake of discussions of re-organizing (ie. splitting) of the group.

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 3:18 PM
To: Alex Zinin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: On BGP and VPLS

Hi Alex,

On Fri, 2 May 2003, Alex Zinin wrote:

>  More specifically, below I tried to put together a list of concerns
>  I have about the approach described in draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls,
>  that I would like the WG to consider.
>
>  1. Use of the NLRI field
>
>    As an IP routing protocol, BGP uses the NLRI field to carry IP
>    reachability information in the form of IP prefixes.

As an IP routing protocol, sure.  But nowhere in RFC 2858 does it
say that BGP has to only be an IP routing protocol.

Furthermore, if BGP is used for L2 autodiscovery (which is by the way
a PPVPN *Working Group* document), the exact same issue applies.

>  2. Distribution of information
>
>    When used as an IP routing protocol, BGP distributes routes among
>    all participating routers.

For 2547, you have the same issue: BGP distributes routes among *all*
participating routers, whereas only a few are really interested in them.
So why is this an issue for VPLS but not for 2547?  The distribution
mechanisms are identical.

>  3. Aggregation of information for large-scale operation

Nowhere does 2858 talk about aggregation; in fact, the notion of
aggregation is not even mentioned.

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

On the issues of BGP for VPLS and also of single solution vs. multiple,
there seems to me (I'm not a PPVPN WG chair!) good consensus that the
WG wants a BGP solution, and also that they want multiple solutions.
Are you, Alex, proposing to override that consensus?

The call for consensus to make the various VPLS drafts WG documents
was made over 3 weeks ago, and the call was supposed to last one week.
We are thus two weeks overdue.  I would like the WG chairs to declare
what consensus they see, keeping in mind the email that Bert Wijnen
(who is a seasoned Area Director) sent to the TE WG just today, saying:

|| But it is WG chair(s) who decide on how to gauge WG conensus.

Or, from RFC 2418:

3.3. Session management

   Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.
....
                         It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
   consensus has been reached.

Kireeti.

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:36:57 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Rick,

> wake of discussions of re-organizing (ie. splitting) of the group.

What's the rationale for holding off declarations of consensus?  This
decision is two weeks overdue, and the split (if it happens) could take
several more weeks.

It would be a complete travesty if a simple consensus call took weeks
but a major decision like a split of the WG was completed in a hurry --
for one, it would suggest that the split was preordained, and not a
joint WG decision, a point that Bilel was seeking clarification on.

Kireeti.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 14:45:34 -0700

Kireeti,

 The two things (declaration of consensus and split-related
 discussions) are not related.

 I asked the chairs to hold this off until we chat about it over the
 phone to make sure we are in sync. Seems that we should be able
 to come back on Monday.

-- 
Alex