Feedback on draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-mvpn-vpls-mcast-00.txt

[Rahul Aggarwal <rahul at juniper.net>]

We recently posted the following draft and would like to request feedback
from the L3VPN and L2VPN WGs on it.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-raggarwa-l3vpn-mvpn-vpls-mcast-00.txt

It describes a solution framework for scalable multicast support in
BGP/MPLS VPNs and VPLS.

Yakov> May be before expanding mVPN draft to cover VPLS we should first
Yakov> fix few fairly fundamental problems of the mVPN draft, like the
Yakov> amount of state within the service provider with PIM-SSM,
Yakov>  the overhead of PIM state on PEs associated with VRF-VRF PIM
Yakov> peering, etc...

The procedures described in the draft reduce the overhead of PIM neighbor
relationships that a PE router needs to maintain with other PE routers
for BGP/MPLS VPNs.

Yakov> when an MDT  does not guarantee that the  (multicast) traffic be delivered
Yakov> to only  the PEs that  have receivers for  that traffic (like the  case
Yakov> of default MDT),  it seems rather  arbitrary to restrict  such MDT
Yakov> to  only a single VPN.

Eric> Assigning multiple VPNs to a single  MDT is worth considering, but
Eric> the trick of course is to come up with an assignment rule which is
Eric> not arbitrary.

The procedures described in the draft also reduce the state (and the
overhead of  maintaining the state) in the SP network by removing the need to
maintain in the SP network at least one dedicated multicast tree per
each VPN. The procedures also apply to VPLS multicast.

Comments are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
rahul