Skip to main content

BGP-Signaled End-System IP/VPNs
draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-06

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    bess mailing list <bess@ietf.org>,
    bess chair <bess-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs.' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'BGP-signaled end-system IP/VPNs.'
  (draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the BGP Enabled Services Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Alia Atlas.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document describes a solution in which the control plane
   protocol specified in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs is used to provide a Virtual
   Network service to end-systems.  These end-systems may be used to
   provide network services or may directly host end-to-end
   applications.

Working Group Summary
   No particular controversy. No-one expressed oneself against adoption,
   and there was large support in favor. After adoption, nothing beyond
   the usual comments/revision cycle.

Document Quality:

   The document is well-written, with concision and a good balance between 
   specification language and practical examples.

   One opensource implementation of the protocol is known (www.opencontrail.org). 
   Note that this is an implementation of an earlier version of the specs, in the process 
   of being updated.

Personnel:

   Thomas Morin is the Document Shepherd.
   Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director.

RFC Editor Note

  (Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)

IRTF Note

  (Insert IRTF Note here or remove section)

IESG Note

  (Insert IESG Note here or remove section)

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note