The MPLS WG Archive

["W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>]

Yakov Rekhter wrote:

> Please document in your draft what is exactly "prudent" about BGP.

Using draft-ietf-l3vpn-ipsec-2547-01.txt as a guide:

"RFC2547 already provides an egress-to-ingress signaling capability via BGP, and 
we specify below how to extend this to the signalling of security policy."

I will add this text to the l3vpn-l2tpv3 document:

"RFC2547 already provides an egress-to-ingress signaling capability via BGP, 
[NALAWADE] or [RAGGARWA] specifies how to extend this to the signaling of L2TPv3 
reachability information for a PE."

> That is, there is nothing in your draft that is specific to just 
 > 2547. E.g., it is equally applicable to VR based L3VPNs. Therefore,
 > the draft has to be generalized to cover any multipoint-to-point
 > application of MPLS over l2tp.

No, the l3vpn-l2tpv3 draft specifies carrying an MPLS label for a VPN-IPv4 
address distributed via RFC2547 extensions to BGP between PEs. I should not 
extend this draft to cover other L3VPN models any more than 
draft-ietf-l3vpn-ipsec-2547-01.txt or draft-ietf-l3vpn-gre-ip-2547-00.txt 
should. Shall I rename it to something with "2547" in the title to be more clear?

>>>3. The security claims have to be reviewed by the Security ADs.

I am more than happy to have discussions with Security ADs on this topic.

- Mark