Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-09
Discuss
Yes
(Mark Townsley)
No Objection
(Allison Mankin)
(Bill Fenner)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jon Peterson)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Ross Callon)
(Ted Hardie)
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2006-02-16)
Unknown
Implementation & interop report is needed for this document.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-01-19)
Unknown
I agree with Ted's DISCUSS. The question about 2 solutions for the same problem was also raised from the MIB Doctor review team.
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-01-17)
Unknown
Gen-ART review comments from Elwyn Davies: The document needs a normative reference to RFC2119 to be pointed at by the conventions section. [Scott Hollenbeck holds a DISCUSS for this.] Editorial nits (input to copy editing): The Boiler Plate is non-standard. Location of the conventions section and section numbering of ToC needs fixing. s4.1: Acronyms GRE, L2TP and IPSEC unexpanded. s6.1.1: Acronyms AGI, TAII, SAII are unexpanded. s9, para 2: s/a identifier/an identifier/ s15: should refer to RFC3036 (LDP) registry in which MAC List TLV type is to be registered.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-01-18)
Unknown
First of all, I agree with Ted's DISCUSS. I received the following comments from the Ops Directorate by Pekka Savola that you might want to consider to improve the document: substantial ----------- 7.2. VPLS Learning actions Learning is done based on the customer Ethernet frame as defined above. The Forwarding Information Base (FIB) keeps track of the mapping of customer Ethernet frame addressing and the appropriate PW to use. We define two modes of learning: qualified and unqualified learning. [...] ==> unqualified learning (if I understood it correctly) really breaks the network badly, are you sure you want to even specify that? Ethernet switches which don't have VLAN-specific spanning trees (a model which you're pushing here) have caused TONS of operational grief .. especially when you have multi-port Ethernet cards which use the same MAC address for all ports (*cough* Sun *cough*).. I don't think you should support unqualified learning *at all* because it's so badly broken, and you also break the customer's VPLS layer 2 by mixing different VLANs' MAC addresses together by doing so. This is not Layer 2 transparent so I'm not sure if it could be called proper L2VPN service. If an ISP doesn't want to deal with multiple VLANs, the ISP should just refuse carry anything that except untagged Ethernet! But if you have to specify it, it needs a *lot* more health warnings! 9.1. MAC Address Aging PEs that learn remote MAC addresses SHOULD have an aging mechanism to remove unused entries associated with a PW label. This is important both for conservation of memory as well as for administrative purposes. For example, if a customer site A is shut down, eventually, the other PEs should unlearn A's MAC address. ==> this SHOULD should probably be a MUST? If MAC addresses are not aged out, they could stay around for ever, and that results in very well known operational problems e.g., when hosts move from one port to another. semi-editorial clarifications ----------------------------- - If the frame, as it arrives at the PE, has an encapsulation that is used by the local PE as a service delimiter, i.e., to identify the customer and/or the particular service of that customer, then that encapsulation may be stripped before the frame is sent into the VPLS. As the frame exits the VPLS, the frame may have a service-delimiting encapsulation inserted. .... By following the above rules, the Ethernet frame that traverses a VPLS is always a customer Ethernet frame. Note that the two actions, at ingress and egress, of dealing with service delimiters are local actions that neither PE has to signal to the other. ==> How does the PE know whether the VLAN tag is a service delimiter or not? (looking at PWE3-ETHERNET, this is probably manual config, it wouldn't hurt to talk about that a bit somewhere here as well) How does egress PE know whether to reinsert a service delimiting VLAN ID, and how to choose it? Isn't this something that needs to be communicated between PEs? As an application of these rules, a customer frame may arrive at a customer-facing port with a VLAN tag that identifies the customer's VPLS instance. That tag would be stripped before it is encapsulated in the VPLS. At egress, the frame may be tagged again, if a service-delimiting tag is used, or it may be untagged if none is used. ==> There are some assumptions here that I don't understand. Are describing a scenario where customer has multiple VPLS instances (e.g., has 10 sites, VPLS 1 for VLAN 1 reaches all of them, VPLS 2 for VLAN 2 reaches the first five, VPLS 3 for VLAN 3 rearches the last 5, or something) and needs a mechanism to signal the "distribution" of the VPLS? If yes, that could possibly be clarified a bit somewhere. How does the PE know which VPLS instances the customer has the right to "subscribe to"? Manual config? How is this information syncronized across all PEs? Just trying to ensure that the customer cannot join someone else's VPLS by picking the right VLAN ID... editorial ------------ The use of IGMP snooping and PIM snooping techniques should be used to improve multicast efficiency. A description of these techniques is beyond the scope of this document. ==> This is a dangerous statement, as VPLS services should be IP-agnostic, and (for example) IGMP snooping may not be able to deal well with IPv6, MLD, newer versions of IGMP, etc. So, I'd consider removing this text or adding a bit of warning, like below -- but I really think you shouldn't be recommending something like this. The use of IGMP snooping and PIM snooping techniques may be used to improve multicast efficiency, but care should be taken to ensure transparency of unknown traffic (e.g., IPv6 multicast, newer IGMP/MLD versions, etc.) . A description of these techniques is beyond the scope of this document.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-01-19)
Unknown
s/IPSEC/IPsec/
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-02-13)
Unknown
There shouldn't be any citations in the abstract. This item is returning, but my discuss hasn't been addressed.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Abstain
Abstain
(2006-02-01)
Unknown
Have not reviede this adequately; no reason to believe I wouldn't support it if I did finish.