Support the solution in this draft and it appears to be a well thought out solution to allow a SP who does not want to fundamentally change the service offering (having customer encapsulate/tunnel traffic on the CE, which eliminates IP based services from being offered by the SP) to scale a traditional any-to-any MPLS VPN service.
I do have a clarification question though which I probably should have asked before WGLC: 1. It appears that changes are not necessarily required on v-spoke forwarding in all cases. Maybe the document could be more clear about what this higher up in the text (referring to last paragraph of section 4 and middle part of section 5, where an option is presented that would require changes to v-spoke to support the model). Do the authors intend that this capability could be deployed for a VPN if some of the v-spokes are not supporting any behaviors in this draft (defined as "vanilla" in the Overview, which later is never utilized as a term except to talk about existing deployments rather than specific PE's)? Is the only constraint that they should not be receiving a default route from CE and that multi-homed sites are provisioned as v-hubs? If an operator accepts these restrictions appraoch can a "vanilla" PE be a v-spoke or did I miss some other requirement? Thanks, Jon On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 05:13:46PM +0200, Thomas Morin wrote: > Hello working group, > > One precision... > > A working group last call is essentially the opportunity to raise > comments that would not have been made before to be made now, before > the document moves to IESG, and the opportunity for those who > haven't read it yet to realize that it is the right time to do so > before processes get heavier. > > Advertising "support" is harmless but less useful than more detailed > reviews or, for instance, explanations why than the work is > considered important or statements that the work is mature. > > -Thomas > > > Thomas Morin : > >Hello working group, > > > >This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on > >draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub, which is considered mature and ready > >for a working group review. > > > >Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent > >version, and send your comments to the list, no later than > >Thursday October 18th. > > > >Thank you, > > > >-Thomas & Martin > > > >[ http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-hub ]
