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