From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com>
Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
l2vpn mailing list <email@example.com>,
l2vpn chair <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Multicast in VPLS' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-16.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Multicast in VPLS'
(draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-16.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel.
A URL of this Internet Draft is:
[RFC4761] and [RFC4762] describe a solution for Virtual Private LAN
Service (VPLS) multicast that relies on the use of point-to-point or
multipoint-to-point unicast Label Switched Paths (LSPs) for carrying
multicast traffic. This solution has certain limitations for certain
VPLS multicast traffic profiles. For example, it may result in highly
non-optimal bandwidth utilization when large amount of multicast
traffic is to be transported.
This document describes solutions for overcoming a subset of the
limitations of existing VPLS multicast solution. It describes
procedures for VPLS multicast that utilize multicast trees in the
service provider (SP) network. The solution described in this
document allows sharing of one such multicast tree among multiple
VPLS instances. Furthermore, the solution described in this document
allows a single multicast tree in the SP network to carry traffic
belonging only to a specified set of one or more IP multicast streams
from one or more VPLS instances.
Working Group Summary
This document is an L2VPN Working Group document, and has
been well reviewed in the working group through multiple iterations
of the draft and WG last calls. The authors have addressed the
comments received on the mailing list and the WG chairs. The draft
was last-called after those comments were addressed and passed
the WG last call.
The document then received considerable review after it left the
WG and has been updated accordingly.
The document has good quality. It is clear on the technical content
and written with good English and layout.
Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar (email@example.com)
Area Director: Stewart Bryant (firstname.lastname@example.org)