Tuesday, November 9, 2010 (1300-1500 Afternoon Session I)
=======================================================
WG Status Web Page: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/l3vpn/

1) Administrivia

2) WG Status
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/l3vpn-2.pptx

Rahul Aggarwal: If you go back to previous slide [charter update]. Suggest that the WG completes the work (12 months) then closes down.
Tom Nadeu: I made this point several times. Narrow scope of the charter and then close it down.
Luca Martini: I agree with Tom to a certain extent. The split (L2/L3) has caused a split in technology. Given the amount of work it may make sense to merge the groups again.
Florin Balus (L2VPN co-chair): From a WG chair perspective it might be a problem merging the groups. L2VPN it might be challenging to consolidate them.
Wim Hendrix: I do not think we should merge the groups
Marshall Eubanks:
Ben Niven-Jenkins: Well early to discuss.
Stewart Bryant: One of the key reasons was L2VPN has too much work. My impression is the agenda was light.
Shane Amanate: We have constantly filled a 2.5hr slot.
Rahul Aggarwal: The foreseeable work is well contained, well defined. Complete work, close it down.
Stewart Bryant: This is feedback, we are fact finding.
Ross Callon: There has been some work on what’s related to cloud computing. This is an area that should be clarified one way or another.
Marshall Eubanks: How do we clarify?
Ross Callon: Chat with cloud people.
Monique Morrow: There is potential, clarify what exists and what needs to be done.
Stuart Bryant: There may be something in meeting more.
Luca Martini: The cloud and computing data center. Not exactly a VPN. They are other requirements.
Stuart Bryant: We appreciate it would require a recharter.

3) VPN Extension for Private Cloud (Paul Unbehagen)
Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-so-vepc-00.txt
Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/l3vpn-0.ppt

Marshall Eubanks: Are you asking us to do anything?
Paul Unbehagen: Nope, soliciting feedback.
Ross Callon: Its important work. Some of this requires extensions work Community input is valuable in identifying where this work goes. It is important that any important piece of work gets done in one place.
Monique Morrow: I pleased to see drafts like this. Customers want solutions.

Ben Niven-Jenkins: Are there obvious enhancements for L3VPN?
Paul Unbehagen: Too early to know. Identifying now.
Mike Mangino: This draft outlines requirements.
Ning So: We have some high-level solutions. There are solutions, there are multiple ways. Maybe a WG is. Smaller items to be done in smaller WGs.
Paul Unbehagen: Where do the linkages need to occur?
Ron Bonica (Jabber): Data Center ops group.
Ross Callon: My understanding the ops area of the IETF does not do protocol specs but it does do requirements. It is a possibility.
Ron Bonica (Jabber): Agrees with Ross.

4) MPLS Layer 3 Carrier Support Carrier Virtual Private Network Management Information Base (Li Chen)
Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li-network-mpls-l3vpn-csc-vpn-mib
Slides: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/l3vpn-1.ppt

Tom: I sent comments on list. You missed the point. You are asking for virtualizing the forwarding table. This discussion happened 5 years ago.
Li Chen: I do not think RFC4382 does not cover the situation.
[There was another speaker at the mike but I did not catch the speakers name nor question.]
Ben Niven-Jenkins: Given that we have people on the floor saying that the existing MIBs are sufficient and the author's think that they are not; you should get together and work it out