datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.4.0, 2014-04-22
Report a bug

Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-16

Approval Announcement

Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    l2vpn mailing list <l2vpn@ietf.org>,
    l2vpn chair <l2vpn-chairs@tools.ietf.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
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast/



Technical Summary

   [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.

Document Quality

    The document has good quality. It is clear on the technical content 
    and written with good English and layout. 

Personnel

    Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com)
    Area Director: Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)