Hello, I made this comment privately during the LC period. I don't mind sharing it more widely: > My high-order take away is that it seems to me that this draft runs > counter to hierarchy-based solutions that can solve this problem just > fine without any additional RSVP modifications. I therefore think > this draft should be run through a WG that is willing to reconcile > the approaches (and fully document their uses case supported by > hierarchy). Failing that, I think the draft should have an IESG > applicability note added saying that this is experimental only and > that standard hierarchy should be used to solve the problem in any > operational implementation/network. > > As to the technical details, the next hop as identified by the Path > message in the VPN context, will have a route and associated label > within the VPN context. This VPN label can be added to the Path > message, just as it would be for any VPN IP packet, and additional > labels may be added for PE-PE transport. In implementations that > rewrite the IP header, the IP destination can be set to the next > hop. The remote PE/next hop will receive the Path message with the > VPN label which will identify the VPN context/VRF. This PE will then > need to identify the packet as RSVP using either the router alert > mechanism or based on the IP header destination address. So I see no > reason for the modifications when the VAN-specific MPLS labels are > used. > > Shout if you think I missed something. Lou On 9/5/2012 6:43 PM, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs' > <draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-06.txt> as Experimental RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-10-03. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) provide connectivity between sites > across an IP/MPLS backbone. These VPNs can be operated using BGP/MPLS > and a single provider edge (PE) node may provide access to multiple > customer sites belonging to different VPNs. > > The VPNs may support a number of customer services including RSVP and > RSVP-TE traffic. This document describes how to support RSVP-TE > between customer sites when a single PE supports multiple VPNs. > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > Due to an error by the sponsoring Area Director, the Last Call on > this document (which completed on 3rd September) incorrectly > stated that this draft was intended that it be published as Informational. > The correct intention (as stated in the draft itself) is that it be > published as Experimental. > > This Last Call is to verify community consensus for publication of > this draft as Experimental. > > > > > >