RE: Comments on the L2 VPN framework and solutions documents

"Himanshu Shah" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.ppvpn
Message-ID <049AAFED91851244B9FF74D0D9D0EB7202152617@WHISTLER.WaveSmithNet.com>
Ali, 

You seem to have different opinion than others
in IEEE group.

ali> I don't think there is a disconnect. When you talk about 
ali> P-STP, you need to consider both intra-island and 
ali> inter-island. P-STP is NOT used for inter-island - 
ali> for that we use full-mesh with split horizon. 
ali> Also keep in mind that P-STP is suggested for 
ali> Ethernet access domain and not MPLS access domain.

However, Mick seems to suggest something different

mick> If the VPLS drafts have not changed significantly in 
mick> their intent (I don't think they have) there is not a disconnect here. 
mick> There is a difference between running spanning tree to cut PWs 
mick> and reduce their topology to that of a spanning tree 
mick> (which is what the VPLS folks were correctly rejecting) 
mick> and conveying spanning tree BPDUs across the emulated LAN 
mick> formed by PWs so that bridge ports attaching to that emulate LAN 
mick> service can have the right state, including the 'LAN' or not in the 
mick> active topology/topologies for VLANs. Again it is neccessary to get 
mick> the layering straight, focusing on which wire a BPDU goes down before
mick> the layering is straight really doesn't help.

Can you clarify what you mean?

/himanshu
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.