Gang, I would like to start the discussion of making Virtual Aggregation, which I presented at the GROW meeting in SF, a working group item.
A new version of the document has been posted, which mainly consists of minor clarifications from folks who make up an expanded author list (Zhang, Jen, and Raszuk). It is at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis-intra-va-01.txt. Note that there are two companion documents associated with this, one each on the specifics of MPLS and IP-in-IP tunnels in support of VA. These have not been updated, though we expect them to be soon. (These are at http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-francis-va-tunnels-mpls-00.txt and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xu-va-tunnels-gre-00.txt respectively) I think that there are mainly two things to discuss: 1. What additional documentation, if any, is needed (requirements, scenarios, MIB, ....)? 2. What should the status of the produced RFCs be (informational, BCP, standard)? Regarding the first, I do think that a requirements/scenarios document is a good idea, but would like to hear opinions. Regarding the second, there are arguments for and against each type. Strictly speaking no protocol changes are needed (except for a case involving GRE tunnels with key values, which require an extended communities attribute to convey the key info). So informational or BCP could both work. I'm inclined towards BCP, but would like to hear opinions. Even possibly we could start this as a working group item without making this decision just yet. Thanks all, PF _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
