Hi working group,
Let me chime a different bell...
(Please note well that this feedback is sent without my co-chair hat. I
won't participate as a chair in the adoption decision on this draft.)
Let me quote the document: "A virtual PE (vPE) is a BGP/MPLS L3/L2 VPN
PE software instance which may reside in any network or computing
devices.". You can pretty much ignore the 'software' part of the
definition since the document does obviously not ban the implementation
of the forwarding plane in hardware. What do we end up with ? Answer:
a virtual PE is... a PE !
So the notion presented by this document under the "virtual PE" name is
merely an implementation choice that can be applied to RFC4364 and
E-VPN. That explains why the amount of useful technical content in the
document is so reduced (i.e. information that it neither obvious or
already present elsewhere). I doubt that the document will be of any
help to implementors or deployers.
Similarly, I doubt that it is very helpful to implementors or deployers
to list all the split/no-split combinations for the control planes and
dataplanes components; and furthermore nothing in that is really
specific to BESS (e.g. it could apply equally to e.g. non-VPN BGP, or to
some other routing protocol).
Don't misunderstand me, I think that the idea of implementing VRFs on
the servers hosting VMs, is great. However, I don't think that a
technical document is missing to facilitate the implementation of such
an approach. It can be argued that an Informational RFC can be produced
to promote the idea, but I would also challenge this: the IETF is not a
marketing venue. [I would add that, even if it was, a 20+ pages RFC may
not be the most efficient way to market an idea. People have been able
to build solutions relying on this approach without a new RFC, and able
to claim that their solution is based on IETF standard RFCs.]
Promoting the idea of an "SDN" implementation of PE functions (whatever
that means) and/or organic data-plane/control-plane separation is yet
another question, but if we were to adopt a document to promote this, at
least I would expect the document to spell out the motivations and avoid
just throwing I2RS references around.
At this point I'm leaving aside comments that could be made on details
on the content, but I think that if this document was to be moved
forward, a fair amount of clarification and editorial work would be
needed. Given what I explained above, I don't think it would be worth to
spend energy on that.
Overall, I don't think that BESS should adopt this document.
-Thomas
Sun Oct 19 2014 21:00:51 GMT+0200 (CEST), Martin Vigoureux:
Hello Working Group,
This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
draft-fang-l3vpn-virtual-pe-05 [1].
Please send comments to the list and state if you support adoption or
not (in both cases please also state the reasons).
This poll runs until November the 3rd.
Coincidentally, we remind you to check and then state on this list if
you are aware, or not, of any undisclosed IPR (according to IETF IPR
rules, see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details) relating
to draft-fang-l3vpn-virtual-pe-05
If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to
this email and state whether or not you are aware of any relevant
IPR. The response needs to be sent to the L3VPN WG mailing list. The
document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.
If you are on the L3VPN WG email list but are not listed as an author or
contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any
IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
Thank you
M&T
---
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fang-l3vpn-virtual-pe-05
