The IESG has approved the following document: - 'LDP Extensions for Optimized MAC Address Withdrawal in H-VPLS' (draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt-13.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Alia Atlas. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-mac-opt/ Technical Summary: RFC4762 describes a mechanism to remove or unlearn MAC addresses that have been dynamically learned in a Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Instance for faster convergence on topology change. The procedure also removes MAC addresses in the VPLS that do not require relearning due to such topology change. This document defines new procedures for MAC flushing in VPLS, H-VPLS and PBB- VPLS services upon access topology changes. These procedures cover additional additional scenarios to that covered RFC 4762 for H-VPLS. MAC flushing is a mechanism used to minimize traffic black-holing time when reachability to MAC addresses changes due to topology access changes. In particular, this document describes procedures for MTU-s initiated MAC flush when MTU-s is dual-homed to provider edges (PEs) over an active and standby Pseudowires, and the propagation of the MAC flush message over the VPLS core and processing at PEs. It also describes a new optimized MAC flush mechanism termed "negative flush" that enables PEs with instances of a VPLS instance to flush the MAC entries reachable via the PE where the topology change was experienced. This is opposed to the current procedure defined in RFC 4762 which cause all MAC addresses previously learned to be flushed except those that are learned from the PE that initiates the flush. Lastly, this document defines the MAC flush and optimized MAC flush for PBB-VPLS services. Working Group Summary: This document is an L2VPN Working Group document. It has gone through a few iterations that addressed comments received from the Working group and comments from the WG chairs. The draft got good support when it was adopted as a WG draft. The Working Group last call got no feedback from the Working Group and the only comments that needed to be addressed were those of the WG chairs. Document Quality: The document has OK quality. It is clear on the technical content and written with reasonable English and layout. The draft has authors from a couple companies that claim to have implemented the solution albeit no interoperability testing was done. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com) Area Director: Adrian Farrel (Adrian@olddog.co.uk)
