Skip to main content

Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs
draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Dan Romascanu
2011-09-14
10 Adrian Farrel Responsible AD has been changed to Stewart Bryant from Ross Callon
2011-05-27
10 Ben Niven-Jenkins Recording current status.
2011-05-27
10 Ben Niven-Jenkins IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2010-03-12
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement to be sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-03-04
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2010-03-04
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2010-03-04
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2010-03-01
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2010-02-25
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-02-25
10 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement sent by Ross Callon
2010-02-25
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-02-25
10 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2010-02-25
10 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-02-25
10 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon
2010-02-25
10 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] Position for Dan Romascanu has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Dan Romascanu
2010-02-10
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR relating to draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10
2010-01-28
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-01-28
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10.txt
2010-01-07
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-01-07
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-01-07
10 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2010-01-06
10 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
It appears the document went through a massive reorganization between drafts -06 and -07,
and some of the references never caught up with …
[Ballot comment]
It appears the document went through a massive reorganization between drafts -06 and -07,
and some of the references never caught up with the reorg.  I noted two specific instances
(see below) but a more thorough review by one of the editors might be in order...

Section 13., paragraph 5
reference to Section 7.2.1 (which does not exist) should probably be 7.4.2

section 14, paragraph 1
reference to Section 7.2.1.1 (which does not exist) should probably be 7.4.2.1
2010-01-06
10 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-01-05
10 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot discuss]
The OPS-DIR review performed by Pekka Savola raised the following issue:

> IPv6 support.  The spec apparently aims to support both IPv4 and …
[Ballot discuss]
The OPS-DIR review performed by Pekka Savola raised the following issue:

> IPv6 support.  The spec apparently aims to support both IPv4 and IPv6
  because it refers to both in a couple of places.  Yet, there is at
  least one explicit place in the spec (S 7.4.2.2) that's not compatible.
  I suspect many of the BGP attributes used, possibly also the MCAST-VPN
  BGP SAFI and others are not IPv6 compatible.  At the minimum, the status
  (intent) of the spec should be clarified. Even better would be to
  improve and include the support here.

Eric Rosen's answer to this was:

> In general, the procedures specified in the document will enable an IPv4 SP backbone to support customer use of IPv6 multicast.  You are correct that section 7.4.2.2 is incomplete in this respect.

However, this does not seem to have been fixed or documented in the revised version. As the issue is related to incomplete IPv6 support, I believe that it needs to be documented clearly including the reasons - even if it would probably not need to block the document taking into account and MVPN and IPv6 may not meet too soon in real life deployments.
2010-01-05
10 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-12-21
10 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-12-17
10 Amy Vezza Telechat date was changed to 2010-01-07 from 2009-12-17 by Amy Vezza
2009-12-17
10 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-12-17
10 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-12-17
10 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-12-16
10 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-12-16
10 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-12-14
10 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-12-11
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder.
2009-12-03
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2009-12-03
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2009-11-30
10 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-12-17 by Ross Callon
2009-11-30
10 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Ross Callon
2009-11-30
10 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2009-11-30
10 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2009-11-30
10 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2009-11-30
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-11-30
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-09.txt
2009-09-29
10 Ross Callon State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon
2009-09-18
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder.
2009-09-08
10 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-09-08
10 Amanda Baber
IANA questions/comments:

- What are the registration procedures for the S-PMSI Join Message
Type registry? Is value 0 reserved? What's the upper limit? Should
it …
IANA questions/comments:

- What are the registration procedures for the S-PMSI Join Message
Type registry? Is value 0 reserved? What's the upper limit? Should
it be placed in an existing page, like
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml?

- The IANA Considerations section refers to a section 7.2.1.1, but
this section doesn't exist.

ACTION 1:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
change in the port number registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

OLD:

mdtp 3232/tcp MDT port
mdtp 3232/udp MDT port
IJsbrand Wijnands

NEW:

mdtp 3232/tcp MDT port
mdtp 3232/udp MDT port
[RFC-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08]


ACTION 2:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will create the following
registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registry Name: S-PMSI Join Message Type
Registration Procedures: ??

Initial contents of this sub-registry will be:

Value | Description | Reference
------+----------------+----------
1 | PIM IPv4 S-PMSI (unaggregated)| [RFC-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08]


ACTION 3:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignment in the "PIM Join Attribute Types" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml

Value | Name | Reference
------+----------------+----------
1 | MVPN Join Attribute | [RFC-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08]
2009-08-27
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2009-08-27
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2009-08-25
10 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-08-25
10 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-08-25
10 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon
2009-08-25
10 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2009-08-25
10 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-08-25
10 (System) Last call text was added
2009-08-25
10 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-08-21
10 Ross Callon State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2009-07-29
10 Ross Callon
Proto writeup by Danny McPherson:

Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs


Proto writeup by Danny McPherson:

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  …
Proto writeup by Danny McPherson:

Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs


Proto writeup by Danny McPherson:

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

  The Document Shepherd is myself (Danny McPherson). I believe that
  the 08 version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication
  on the Internet Standards Track.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

  The document passed the L3VPN WG Last Call, many comments were
  received and these were addressed by the document authors.  I
  believe all substantial comments have been addressed.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

  No.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

  This document is put forth with draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp.
  Interoperability and default deployment modes are a concern because of
  the large number of "functions/features" provided in each of these
  specifications.  Many of these concerns are meant to be addressed by
  draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations, which will be submitted very
  shortly as well.  The WG agreed with this path as seemingly the only
  viable path to progressing this work.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

  A great deal of debate and discussion has occurred around this
  draft and the companion drafts mentioned above.  After much
  deliberation and consideration with the WG and relevant stake
  holders and leadership (e.g., chairs, ADs, authors) this seems to
  be most feasible path forward.  Given the length of these documents
  I suspect a great deal of the WG couldn't find their way through the
  entire set of text, but for those that are "interested parties", more
  than enough discussion and review has taken place.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

    No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

  Beyond some expired references (not surprisingly) that need to be
  updated, it looks fine.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

  The document split its references, beyond some expired references
  (not surprisingly) that need to be updated, it looks fine.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

  The document contains IANA consideration section.  To the best
  of my knowledge the IANA considerations are consistent with the
  rest of the document.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

  No section of this document is written in a formal language.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
            Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
            and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be
            an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
            or introduction.

    In order for IP multicast traffic within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual
    Private Network) to travel from one VPN site to another, special
    protocols and procedures must be implemented by the VPN Service
    Provider.  These protocols and procedures are specified in this
    document.

          Working Group Summary
            Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?  For
            example, was there controversy about particular points or
            were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
            rough?

    This document is a product of L3VPN WG.  It's progress is reliant
    upon the accompanying progress of draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp
    and draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations, as outlined above.

          Document Quality
            Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

    Yes, although my knowledge of exactly which aspects of this
    specification have been implemented is limited.

            Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan
            to implement the specification?

  While I do believe this to be the case, I cannot speak authoritatively
  to this question.

            Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as
            having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted
            in important changes or a conclusion that the document
            had no substantive issues?

  Not to the best of my knowledge, and the contributors section, as
  well as the list of authors beyond the editors seems to appropriately
  address this.

            If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
            review, what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of
            a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

  Nope, none of the above.
2009-07-29
10 Ross Callon Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested
2009-03-24
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Yakov Rekhter's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08 belonging to Cisco Systems
2009-03-05
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08.txt
2009-02-09
(System) Posted related IPR disclosure: Juniper's Statement of IPR related to draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-07
2009-01-11
10 (System) Document has expired
2008-07-11
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-07.txt
2008-01-14
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-06.txt
2007-07-08
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-05.txt
2007-05-02
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-04.txt
2006-10-19
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-03.txt
2006-06-27
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-02.txt
2005-12-28
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-01.txt
2005-06-01
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-00.txt