Subject: L2VPN WG (Re-)charter

From: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:11:27 -0600

Hi,

As mentioned during the WG meeting at IETF 71 in Philadelphia, below  
is a proposed draft of a new charter for the L2VPN WG.  Included are  
the following new items:
- Multicast
- Scalability
- Multi-homing / Service Convergence
- Inter-AS

Please take a look at the entire text, including suggested dates for  
deliverables & milestones.

Please send any questions, clarifications or suggested changes to the  
WG mailing list.  If you believe the new charter (below) is fine "as- 
is", then please indicate your support to the WG mailing list, as well.

We would like to set a time-limit for discussion and agreement of the  
new charter, in order that we can get back to the business at hand.   
As such, let me propose that we wrap-up discussion and gauge (rough)  
consensus by Friday, April 25, 1700 MDT (UTC -6), which is a little  
over 1 month from now.

Thanks,

-shane & Vach

---cut here---

The L2VPN working group is responsible for defining and specifying a
limited number of solutions for supporting provider-provisioned Layer-2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs).  Layer-2 VPN's comprise the  
following:

1. Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) -- A Layer-2 service that emulates
    an Ethernet (V)LAN across an IP or an MPLS-enabled IP Packet  
Switched
    Network (PSN).

2. Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) -- A Layer 2 service that  
provides
    point-to-point connectivity for a variety of link layers, including
    Frame Relay, ATM, Ethernet, PPP, etc., across an IP or MPLS- 
enabled IP
    PSN.

3. IP-only L2VPN -- A point-to-point or point-to-multipoint "IP-only"
    service over an IP or MPLS-enabled PSN.  This service is similar to
    VPWS because it supports a variety of link-layer protocols on the
    Attachment Circuits, including Frame Relay, ATM, Ethernet, PPP, etc.
    IP-only L2VPN's are different from both VPLS and VPWS because  
unicast
    Layer-2 frames containing IP data packets, either IPv4 or IPv6,  
are de-
    encapsulated leaving only the IP data packet to be transmitted over
    the PSN.  An IP-only L2VPN service also differs from L3VPN service,
    since no routing protocol operates between the PE and CE;  
furthermore,
    connectivity from CE to CE is provided via an emulated Layer-2  
service
    over the PSN, which results in the CE's appearing to be directly
    attached to each other at Layer-2.  The WG will address two specific
    types of IP-only L2VPN:

    a) Those with Attachment Circuits (ACs) that use the same Layer 2
    framing at all attachment points in the same L2VPN; and,

    b) Those with ACs that use different Layer 2 framing at various
    attachment points in the same L2VPN. For (b), inter-working between
    link-layers is strictly out of scope beyond that which is minimally
    necessary to ensure that IP packets are transported from an AC of  
one
    type, across the IP or MPLS-enabled IP PSN, and to an AC of another
    type in as transparent a manner as possible to the CEs on both sides
    of the service.

VPLS and VPWS operate over Pseudowires (PWs) as defined by the PWE3 WG.
As with a single PW, an L2VPN emulates a "native" service over a PSN  
that
is reasonably faithful to, but may not be entirely indistinguishable
from, the native service itself. Further, following in the "edge-to- 
edge"
nature of the PWs that it uses, the L2VPN WG will not define any new
mechanisms which exert control over the underlying PSN.  When necessary
it may, however, recommend or require the use of existing PSN QoS and
path control mechanisms between PW endpoints which make up the L2VPN.

L2VPN's will make use of existing IETF specified mechanisms unless there
are technical reasons why the existing mechanisms are insufficient or
unnecessary.

The L2VPN WG is responsible for specification of the discovery and
membership of PE's participating in a VPLS, VPWS or IP-only L2VPN as  
well
as the membership of CE devices to a specific instance of a L2VPN.

The L2VPN WG will provide extensions of existing protocols that will be
discussed in protocol-specific WG's.  In particular, the L2VPN WG
will define extensions to pseudowire management (OAM) mechanisms,
specifically Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification  
(VCCV),
for VPLS.  Those VCCV extensions will be reviewed by PWE3 to ensure they
are inline with the overall design/architecture of VCCV.

The L2VPN WG will not define new encapsulations, control (set-up,
configuration, maintenance or tear-down), or resiliency mechanisms
specifically related to pseudowires, because those must be defined by  
the
PWE3 WG.  Furthermore, the L2VPN WG will not define protocol inter-
working between a VPLS or VPWS and native service-layer control, OAM or
or resiliency mechanisms, as those will be defined by the PWE3 WG.  On
the other hand, the L2VPN WG will define how to operate native service-
layer control, OAM or resiliency mechanisms on top of a VPLS or VPWS
service.

The L2VPN WG scope includes the following:

1. Discovery of PE's participating in a Layer-2 VPN and the associated
    topology required for connectivity of the VPLS or VPWS service.

2. Signaling of information related to the discovery and membership of
    PE's within a L2VPN.  These procedures must use PWE3 control and
    management procedures, or define requirements for extensions of PWE3
    protocols to suit the needs of an L2VPN.  Once those requirements  
are
    reviewed by the L2VPN WG, they should be provided to the PWE3 WG to
    derive solutions.

3. MIB's for Layer-2 VPN solutions.

4. Specification of requirements and framework that will define  
Operations
    Administration and Management (OAM) procedures for VPLS and VPWS  
VPN's,
    related to the operation of VPLS and VPWS VPN's over IP/MPLS PSN's.
    In addition, the L2VPN WG will define OAM solutions for VPLS and  
VPWS
    VPN's.

5. Mechanisms to permit optimization of multicast data traffic within
    a VPLS or VPWS VPN over an IP/MPLS PSN.

6. Improved service convergence for multi-homed CE's to VPLS PE's.
    Specifically, upon failure of a primary path from a CE to VPLS PE,
    initiate a rapid switch-over to an alternate path.  If required,
    interactions with native service-layer resiliency mechanisms will be
    provided via solutions from other IETF WG's such as PWE3.

7. Enhancements to increase the scalability of the Forwarding Database  
of
    VPLS PE nodes.

8. Definition of requirements and solutions for Inter-AS VPLS and VPWS
    services.

The L2VPN WG currently works on the following tasks:

- Define MIB's appropriate for each type of Layer-2 VPN.

- Specification of Operations Administration and Management (OAM)
   mechanisms for VPLS, VPWS and IP-only VPN's.

- Specification of procedures to permit optimization of L2VPN multicast
   data traffic within the PSN.

- Define enhancements to increase scalability of VPLS PE nodes, to
   provide aggregation of learned customer MAC addresses at VPLS PE's.

- Identify requirements for multi-homing of CE's to VPLS PE's.
   elements.  Based on these requirements, define solutions for  
achieving
   fast convergence after a switchover to an alternate path, for example
   through optimized MAC flushing within a VPLS domain.

- Identify requirements for Inter-AS VPLS and VPWS services.  Define
   Inter-AS enhancements to VPLS and VPWS based on these requirements.

Where necessary, the WG will coordinate its activities with IEEE 802.1.

Goals and Milestones:

Done   Submit L2 requirements to IESG for publication as Informational  
RFC
Done   Identify VPLS and VPWS solutions for the WG
Done   Submit L2 framework to IESG for publication as Informational RFC
Done   Submit VPLS solution documents to IESG
Done   Submit VPWS solution documents to IESG
Done   Submit an I-D on OAM requirements for VPLS
Done   Submit an I-D on OAM requirements for VPWS
Done   Submit an I-D describing MIB for VPLS
Done   Submit an I-D describing MIB for VPWS

Mar 2008    Submit IP-only L2VPN solution documents to IESG

Nov 2008    Submit MAC learning optimization solutions for VPLS to IESG

Nov 2008    Submit multicast optimization solutions for VPLS to IESG

Mar 2009    Submit I-D on Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS)
             requirements to IESG

Mar 2009    Submit OAM solutions for VPWS to IESG
Mar 2009    Submit OAM solutions for VPLS to IESG
Mar 2009    Submit OAM solutions for IP-only L2VPN to IESG

Jul 2009    Submit MIB for VPLS to IESG
Jul 2009    Submit MIB for VPWS to IESG
Jul 2009    Submit MIB for IP-only L2VPN to IESG

Nov 2009    Submit Auto-Discovery solution for VPMS to IESG

Nov 2009    Submit scalability solutions for VPLS Control-Plane to IESG
Nov 2009    Submit scalability solutions for VPLS Data-Plane to IESG

Jul 2010    Submit VPLS service convergence improvement solutions to  
IESG

Jul 2010    Submit VPLS multi-homing solutions to IESG

Jul 2010    Submit Inter-AS VPLS and VPWS solutions to IESG

---

From: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:45:40 -0600

Hi Folks,

It's been just over two weeks and we haven't heard any support for or 
comments on the suggested charter below.  This is just a gentle reminder 
to speak up in order that current/in-flight and future projects aren't 
delayed or dropped.

-shane

Shane Amante wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As mentioned during the WG meeting at IETF 71 in Philadelphia, below is 
> a proposed draft of a new charter for the L2VPN WG.  Included are the 
> following new items:
> - Multicast
> - Scalability
> Please send any questions, clarifications or suggested changes to the WG 
> mailing list.  If you believe the new charter (below) is fine "as-is", 
> then please indicate your support to the WG mailing list, as well.
> 
> new charter, in order that we can get back to the business at hand.  As 
> such, let me propose that we wrap-up discussion and gauge (rough) 
> consensus by Friday, April 25, 1700 MDT (UTC -6), which is a little over 
> 1 month from now.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -shane & Vach
> 
> ---cut here---
> 
> Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs).  Layer-2 VPN's comprise the following:
> 
>    an Ethernet (V)LAN across an IP or an MPLS-enabled IP Packet Switched
>    Network (PSN).
> 
> 2. Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) -- A Layer 2 service that provides
>    Frame Relay, ATM, Ethernet, PPP, etc., across an IP or MPLS-enabled IP
>    PSN.
> 
>    IP-only L2VPN's are different from both VPLS and VPWS because unicast
>    Layer-2 frames containing IP data packets, either IPv4 or IPv6, are de-
>    since no routing protocol operates between the PE and CE; furthermore,
>    connectivity from CE to CE is provided via an emulated Layer-2 service
>    necessary to ensure that IP packets are transported from an AC of one
> As with a single PW, an L2VPN emulates a "native" service over a PSN that
> from, the native service itself. Further, following in the "edge-to-edge"
> membership of PE's participating in a VPLS, VPWS or IP-only L2VPN as well
> specifically Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV),
> specifically related to pseudowires, because those must be defined by the
>    protocols to suit the needs of an L2VPN.  Once those requirements are
> 4. Specification of requirements and framework that will define Operations
>    Administration and Management (OAM) procedures for VPLS and VPWS VPN's,
>    In addition, the L2VPN WG will define OAM solutions for VPLS and VPWS
>    VPN's.
> 
> 7. Enhancements to increase the scalability of the Forwarding Database of
>    VPLS PE nodes.
> 
>   elements.  Based on these requirements, define solutions for achieving
> Done   Submit L2 requirements to IESG for publication as Informational RFC
> Jul 2010    Submit VPLS service convergence improvement solutions to IESG
>

---

From: "Nurit Sprecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:00:20 +0300

Hi Shane,
]I support the proposed charter.
Best regards,
Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Shane Amante
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 21:46
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: L2VPN WG (Re-)charter

Hi Folks,

-shane

> As mentioned during the WG meeting at IETF 71 in Philadelphia, below
is 
> Please send any questions, clarifications or suggested changes to the
WG 

> new charter, in order that we can get back to the business at hand.
As 
> consensus by Friday, April 25, 1700 MDT (UTC -6), which is a little
over 
Switched
provides
unicast
furthermore,
service
one
that
well
(VCCV),
the
are
Operations
VPN's,
VPWS
of
achieving
RFC
IESG

---

From: "LASSERRE, Marc \(Marc\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:20:58 +0200

I support the new charter.

Marc

-----Original Message-----

Hi Folks,

-shane

is 
WG 

As 
over 
Switched
provides
unicast
furthermore,
service
one
that
well
(VCCV),
the
are
Operations
VPN's,
VPWS
of
achieving
RFC
IESG

---

From: "AISSAOUI Mustapha" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:26:05 -0500

I support these additions to the charter.

Mustapha. 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Shane Amante
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:46 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> It's been just over two weeks and we haven't heard any 
> support for or comments on the suggested charter below.  This 
> is just a gentle reminder to speak up in order that 
> current/in-flight and future projects aren't delayed or dropped.
> 
> -shane
> 
> 
> Shane Amante wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > WG mailing list.  If you believe the new charter (below) is fine 
> > "as-is", then please indicate your support to the WG 
> mailing list, as well.
> > 
> > limited number of solutions for supporting provider-provisioned 
> > Layer-2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs).  Layer-2 VPN's 
> comprise the following:
> > 
> > that is reasonably faithful to, but may not be entirely 
> > indistinguishable from, the native service itself. Further, 
> following in the "edge-to-edge"
> > mechanisms which exert control over the underlying PSN.  When 
> > necessary it may, however, recommend or require the use of existing 
> > PSN QoS and path control mechanisms between PW endpoints 
> which make up the L2VPN.
> > 
> > L2VPN's will make use of existing IETF specified mechanisms unless 
> > there are technical reasons why the existing mechanisms are 
> > insufficient or unnecessary.
> > 
> > well as the membership of CE devices to a specific instance 
> of a L2VPN.
> > 
> > The L2VPN WG will provide extensions of existing protocols 
> that will 
> > be discussed in protocol-specific WG's.  In particular, the 
> L2VPN WG 
> > (VCCV), for VPLS.  Those VCCV extensions will be reviewed 
> by PWE3 to 
> > ensure they are inline with the overall design/architecture of VCCV.
> > 
> > working between a VPLS or VPWS and native service-layer 
> control, OAM 
> > or or resiliency mechanisms, as those will be defined by 
> the PWE3 WG.  
> > On the other hand, the L2VPN WG will define how to operate native 
> > service- layer control, OAM or resiliency mechanisms on top 
> of a VPLS 
> > or VPWS service.
> >

---

From: "Nitin Bahadur" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:17:02 -0700

Support the proposed re-charter.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Shane Amante
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:46 AM
> To: [email-masked]
is
As
over
> > limited number of solutions for supporting provider-provisioned
Layer-2
Switched
> >    Frame Relay, ATM, Ethernet, PPP, etc., across an IP or
MPLS-enabled
> IP
unicast
are
> de-
one
> > mechanisms which exert control over the underlying PSN.  When
necessary
> > L2VPN's will make use of existing IETF specified mechanisms unless
there
are
VPWS
achieving

---

From: "Dutta, Pranjal K \(Pranjal\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 03:22:35 +0530

Support this proposed re-charter.

Thanks,
Pranjal 

-----Original Message-----

Hi Folks,

-shane

Shane Amante wrote:
> "as-is", then please indicate your support to the WG mailing list, as
well.
> Layer-2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs).  Layer-2 VPN's comprise the
Switched
provides
unicast
furthermore,
service
one
> indistinguishable from, the native service itself. Further, following
in the "edge-to-edge"
> PSN QoS and path control mechanisms between PW endpoints which make up
the L2VPN.
> well as the membership of CE devices to a specific instance of a
L2VPN.
> 
> The L2VPN WG will provide extensions of existing protocols that will 
> be discussed in protocol-specific WG's.  In particular, the L2VPN WG 
> (VCCV), for VPLS.  Those VCCV extensions will be reviewed by PWE3 to 
> working between a VPLS or VPWS and native service-layer control, OAM 
> or or resiliency mechanisms, as those will be defined by the PWE3 WG.

> service- layer control, OAM or resiliency mechanisms on top of a VPLS 
> or VPWS service.
> 
are
Operations
VPN's,
VPWS
of
achieving
RFC
IESG

---

From: "Dinesh Mohan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:17:04 -0400

Shane,

Please note some comments regarding the updated charter statement
(marked as DM>>):

"L2VPN's will make use of existing IETF specified mechanisms unless
there are technical reasons why the existing mechanisms are insufficient
or unnecessary."

DM>> Which IETF mechanisms are we referring to? This statement seems
quite vague, can we offer some guidance around the relevance of this
statement.

"In particular, the L2VPN WG will define extensions to Pseudowire
management (OAM) mechanisms, specifically Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV), for VPLS.  Those VCCV extensions will
be reviewed by PWE3 to ensure they are inline with the overall
design/architecture of VCCV."

DM>> Is it necessary to include this statement in the charter? This is
presuming solutions that may not have been completely hashed out yet.
Isn't the first statement Sufficient in this para "The L2VPN WG will
provide extensions of existing protocols that will be discussed in
protocol-specific WG's."

DM>> Bullet 4 of scope statement does not talk about IP only L2VPN OAM
while 2nd bullet of current work does. This inconsistency should be
addressed.

DM>> We should enhance bullet 7 of scope which currently states "7.
Enhancements to increase the scalability of the Forwarding Database of
VPLS PE nodes." to at least provide some example of current direction,
similar to some other items in the list. As a suggestion "7.
Enhancements to increase the scalability of the Forwarding Database of
VPLS PE nodes. This may include using mechanisms being defined by IEEE
e.g. 802.1ah."

"Nov 2009    Submit Auto-Discovery solution for VPMS to IESG"
DM>> VPMS?? Possibly a typo :-)

---
Dinesh

-----Original Message-----

Hi Folks,

-shane

well.
Switched
provides
unicast
furthermore,
service
one
in the "edge-to-edge"
the L2VPN.
L2VPN.

are
Operations
VPN's,
VPWS
of
achieving
RFC
IESG

---

From: Xu Xiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:21:44 +0200

Support.

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Shane
> Amante
> 发送时间: 2008年3月31日 20:46
> 收件人: [email-masked]
> 主题: Re: L2VPN WG (Re-)charter
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
provides
furthermore,
service
that
well
(VCCV),
the
Operations
VPN's,
of
RFC
IESG

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:43:49 +0200

Shane,

just a few smaller issues

- for discovery specifiactions
   --  does this include automated Inter-AS discovery
   --  to discover PEs that participates in a particular
       VPMS, how different is this from discovery for PEs
       participating in a VPLS?
   -- how different is L2VPN discovery from L3VPN discovery?

- I would split the
   > Jul 2010    Submit Inter-AS VPLS and VPWS solutions to IESG
   milestone into two different mailstones

- I'm a bit uncertain about whether there are one or two multi-homing
   scenarios in the text
   -- VPLS using multi-homed CEs
   -- multi-homed VPLS solutions

/Loa

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
                                            [email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:46:56 +0200

Hi Shane,
I support the proposed re-charter

Just a comment related to multicast:
In the goals and milestones sections, you are referring to VPMS (Virtual Private Multicast Servcice), I would suggest to introduce this service in the charter itself as a new L2VPN to be added to the 3 existing VPLS, VPWS and IPLS.

Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS) -- A Layer 2 service that
Provides point-to-multipoint connectivity for a variety of link layers, including Frame Relay, ATM, Ethernet, PPP, etc., across an IP or MPLS-enabled IP PSN.

VPLS, VPWS and VPMS operate over Pseudowires (PWs) as defined by the PWE3 WG. 

Regards,
Fred

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Shane Amante
Envoyé : lundi 31 mars 2008 20:46
À : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: L2VPN WG (Re-)charter

Hi Folks,

It's been just over two weeks and we haven't heard any support for or comments on the suggested charter below.  This is just a gentle reminder to speak up in order that current/in-flight and future projects aren't delayed or dropped.

-shane

Shane Amante wrote:
> "as-is", then please indicate your support to the WG mailing list, as well.
> 
> Layer-2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs).  Layer-2 VPN's comprise the following:
> 
> indistinguishable from, the native service itself. Further, following in the "edge-to-edge"
> PSN QoS and path control mechanisms between PW endpoints which make up the L2VPN.
> 
> well as the membership of CE devices to a specific instance of a L2VPN.
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:24:43 +0200

Shane,

I support the new WG charter, and the proposal below to clarify the VPWS topic.

Regards,
Philippe.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de [email-masked]
Envoyé : mardi 1 avril 2008 14:47
À : [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked]
Objet : RE: L2VPN WG (Re-)charter

Hi Shane,

Virtual Private Multicast Service (VPMS) -- A Layer 2 service that Provides point-to-multipoint connectivity for a variety of link layers, including Frame Relay, ATM, Ethernet, PPP, etc., across an IP or MPLS-enabled IP PSN.

Regards,
Fred

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Shane Amante Envoyé : lundi 31 mars 2008 20:46 À : [email-masked] Objet : Re: L2VPN WG (Re-)charter

Hi Folks,

-shane