--On onsdag, juni 25, 2003 09:42:19 -0700 Yakov Rekhter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
the attached e-mail that have been posted to the PPVPN mailing
list sheds some light on why the IETF's track record for this
work so far is quite poor.
since we've started recycling other people's arguments, let
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) writes:
... nobody else rose up to refute him there on this issue.
ok, i'll bite.
My spam filters decided to put it in the junk. But it neatly
illustrates the issue we have when the I* tries to look at the big
picture, and a special interest
--On onsdag, juni 25, 2003 09:00:28 -0700 Yakov Rekhter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I certainly agree with your on the track record. But I think we
need to be a bit more specific on why the track record is quite
poor. For example, why the IESG didn't approve 2547bis as a Proposed
Standard 2 years
Harald It might have something to do with the fact that the WG has not
Harald requested that the IESG process these drafts if the WG has not
Harald come to consensus on asking for the drafts to be published, I'm
Harald afraid the IESG cannot do anything.
I consider this answer
Paul,
Alternatively, we can own up that it is OUR problem, i.e., the IETF, and if
we want a solution, we will create one here.
If we decide that the problem is one in our realm, I fully agree.
But transporting layer 2 stuff over IP is not a problem that affects
the Internet. It is a
Paul,
At 10:15 AM +0200 6/18/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
- some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't
- we're too stupid to get it
Paul,
At 10:15 AM +0200 6/18/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
- some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't
- we're too stupid to get it
From: Yakov Rekhter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
In the rather arrogant terms of internet engineering, the IESG is by
definition the set of people that are clueless. It is not possible
for it to be the other way around. No matter how wise and inteligent
IESG memebers are...
It is necessarly that
Melinda,
Primarily, folks want to use it as in
Ethernet-over-MPLS. That may not necessarily go down
well with you either, but think of MPLS as a logical FR.
I think we need to retain a focus on connectionless,
packet-oriented delivery and how to build on that.
What makes you think
Pekka,
[clipped...]
From your message, I can't tell which of those, or of any number of other
possible objections, is the basis of your objection.
BTW - all these things were already being worked on in PPVPN. Some were
even described in the charter.
Fair question, I probably
Randy,
We're doing it is a statement of fact. However, we've been
doing it for over two years. Pseudo-wire work has been ongoing
for over 4 years. MPLS has been ongoing since 1996 or
thereabouts.
no disagreement. the question i am hearing is not why is this
being done, but
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, grenville armitage wrote:
Pekka Savola wrote:
[..]
Moreover, we work on an IP layer. We enable IP layer to be able to handle
our tasks. If there is some problem why we cannot just use different IP
subnets between the two (or multiple) end-points, we need to fix
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
From your message, I can't tell which of those, or of any number of other
possible objections, is the basis of your objection.
BTW - all these things were already being worked on in PPVPN. Some were
even described in the charter.
At 10:26 PM -0700 6/21/03, Alex Zinin wrote:
Folks-
Having watched this discussion, it seems a couple of data points
might be helpful:
1. L2VPN and L3VPN proposed WGs are part of PPVPN WG split
Creation of L2VPN and L3VPN WG does not represent addition of new
work to the IETF. They
Folks-
Having watched this discussion, it seems a couple of data points
might be helpful:
1. L2VPN and L3VPN proposed WGs are part of PPVPN WG split
Creation of L2VPN and L3VPN WG does not represent addition of new
work to the IETF. They are created as part of the process of
--On onsdag, juni 18, 2003 15:31:56 -0400 Melinda Shore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As a process kind of thing, I'm also concerned about the
growth of the temporary sub-IP area, so I think there are
issues here with both the work itself and in how the IETF
goes about taking on and structuring its
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If you use LDP, it is NOT a routing protocol. The specific mode of
use
(targeted LDP) is already described in RFC 3036. The FECs are
different, but
the FEC TLV was defined in such a way as to be extensible.
And when you want to do this
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Vach Kompella wrote:
- the IETF is too large, so we shouldn't be adding more work
Yes.
So we should not do any new work?!
We should focus on the work that is more integral to IP and the Internet.
1. Virtual Private LAN Service. This is Internet-wise ethernet
1. Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)--L2 service that emulates LAN
across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP network, allowing standard
Ethernet devices communicate with each other as if they were
connected to a common LAN segment.
I do not believe this is a technically
Vach Kompella wrote:
Melinda,
As a process kind of thing, I'm also concerned about the
growth of the temporary sub-IP area, so I think there are
issues here with both the work itself and in how the IETF
goes about taking on and structuring its work.
And proposals have been made to dismantle
Hi,
I do not think this WG should be chartered.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, The IESG wrote:
1. Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)--L2 service that emulates LAN
across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP network, allowing standard
Ethernet devices communicate with each other as if they
Pekka,
why?
I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
- some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't
- we're too stupid to get it right, so we shouldn't do it
- the IETF is too large, so we
*
* I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
*
* - this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
* - some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't
* - we're too stupid to get it right, so we shouldn't do it
* - the IETF is too
Pekka,
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
Yes to both.
As a meaningless response, I could just say - it's a good idea. And it is
possible
We're doing it.
That's an uh-oh comment. It's very common to hear people
say that the IETF doesn't know how to say no to new work.
I think the real problem is that many people bringing new
work to the IETF don't know how to accept being told no
and it leads to harass-a-thons of the IESG on the
On 6/18/2003 1:18 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
We're doing it.
...the real problem is that many people bringing new
work to the IETF don't know how to accept being told no
and it leads to harass-a-thons of the IESG on the one hand
and dubious work on the other.
:-) :-)
I agree.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- we must not overload routing protocols and such infrastructure
(IMHO,
this seems an inevitable path the work would go towards..)
If you use LDP, it is NOT a routing protocol. The specific mode of use
(targeted LDP) is already described in
The IETF does continue to have an emphasis on connectionless,
packet-oriented delivery. That's our fundamental architecture, without
question. In the meantime there are customers who want to transition to
c, p-o d but need mechanisms for doing so.
Personally I'd find this proposal more
If you use LDP, it is NOT a routing protocol. The specific mode of use
(targeted LDP) is already described in RFC 3036. The FECs are
different, but
the FEC TLV was defined in such a way as to be extensible.
And when you want to do this inter-domain? Everything else seems to
have
Paul,
At 10:15 AM +0200 6/18/03, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
- some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't
- we're too stupid to get it
Melinda,
As a process kind of thing, I'm also concerned about the
growth of the temporary sub-IP area, so I think there are
issues here with both the work itself and in how the IETF
goes about taking on and structuring its work.
And proposals have been made to dismantle the SUBIP area and
At 1:31 PM -0700 6/18/03, Vach Kompella wrote:
- the IETF's track record for this work so far is quite poor
That's not a problem of the ppvpn group only. It is a problem of the IETF.
Generally agree.
I don't need to refresh your memory about IPSec, do I? SKIP, Skeme, Oakley,
IKE. AH or ESP
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Why do you think that the re-chartered WG will have any more luck
with these than the current one? There are a zillion hardware vendors
and service providers who have reasons to want the dozens of
documents that are in the current WGs, and
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 03:31:56PM -0400, Melinda Shore allegedly wrote:
The IETF does continue to have an emphasis on connectionless,
packet-oriented delivery. That's our fundamental architecture,
without question. In the meantime there are customers who want to
transition to c, p-o d but
Paul,
At 1:31 PM -0700 6/18/03, Vach Kompella wrote:
I'm not sure how to argue with the statement the IETF has done a
horrible job with a similar working group, so we want our working
group in the IETF.
Well, how about, we can't agree on IPv6 numbering schemes, so let's find another
People need to understand that the purpose of the Pseudowire stuff (PWE3) is
to enable service providers to offer existing services over IP networks, so
that they can convert their backbones to IP without first requiring that all
their customers change their access equipment. Producing the
At 6:43 PM -0700 6/18/03, Vach Kompella wrote:
I'm not sure how to argue with the statement the IETF has done a
horrible job with a similar working group, so we want our working
group in the IETF.
Well, how about, we can't agree on IPv6 numbering schemes, so let's
find another
standards org
37 matches
Mail list logo
