1 / 8

L2VPN WG Meeting

L2VPN WG Meeting. IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA. WG Document Status (1/4). I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: Cleared DISCUSS: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-08 draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2vpn-07 draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-06

carrington
Download Presentation

L2VPN WG Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. L2VPN WG Meeting IETF 65 Dallas, TX, USA

  2. WG Document Status (1/4) I-D’s previously “On Hold”, pending resolution of Security Area review: • Cleared DISCUSS: • draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp-08 • draft-ietf-l2tpext-l2vpn-07 • draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-06 • Needs paragraph included from RFC4364, §13.1, to clear DISCUSS. • Paragraph unifies security between L3VPN & L2VPN. • draft-ietf-l2vpn-signaling-07 • Needs a paragraph to say that for manually instantiated tunnels refer to RFC4023; for auto-discovered tunnels over IP, it is desirable to have a more automated method to secure the traffic – however, that is out-of-scope for this document and will be looked at in the future.

  3. WG Document Status (2/4) • draft-ietf-l2vpn-requirements-06 • Does not adequately address §4.5.1, User Data Security, of RFC 3809. • l2vpn-reqmt’s should address this in the same manner as §6.9.1 (Support for Securing Customer Flows [over the Internet]) of RFC 4031 to make L3VPN & L2VPN consistent. • Need to reconcile §6.10.4, Security Considerations for Multi-Provider L2VPN’s, from RFC4031 with l2vpn-reqmt’s. • l2vpn-reqmt’s has multi-provider requirements, but less specific security language than RFC4031.

  4. WG Document Status (3/4) • In RFC-Editor Queue: • draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2-framework-05 • Passed WG LC, waiting for ARP-MED: • draft-ietf-l2vpn-ipls-05 • Need to issue WG LC, (after IETF 65): • draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpws-iw-oam-00 • Need to make WG doc, (after IETF 65): • draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-bridge-interop-02 • Needs some more (minor) work, before WG LC: • draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-04

  5. WG Document Status (4/4) • In Progress: • draft-ietf-l2vpn-oam-req-frmk-04 • draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-00 • draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-00 • draft-qiu-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-ldp-00 • draft-praba-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-emul-01 • draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00 • draft-weillian-l2vpn-mib-00.txt • Unknown or New I-D's: • draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-01, (well, not so new …) • draft-ietf-l2vpn-radius-pe-discovery-02 • draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-multicast-congruency-00

  6. VPLS + VPWS MIB Work • Asked Tom Nadeau to be lead-editor • Tom is editing a document with ZTE + Cisco + Alcatel MIB contributions • Publish first revision to list in May timeframe for WG review • Wrap up MIB work by December

  7. Multicast State Distribution between VPLS PE routers Using LDP draft-qiu-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-ldp- 01.txt Changes made in 01: • LDP Multicast Capability TLV • Now have bits for PIM-SM, PIM-DM, and IGMP/MLD • Removed MAC address field from Hello Sub TLV • Wording changes

  8. PIM Snooping over VPLS draft-hemige-serbest-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt Next Steps: • Add the PIM proxy approach to the next revision of the draft after this IETF meeting • Ask for WG call to move it forward to support the LDP multicast state distribution draft

More Related