RE: Comments on the L2 VPN framework and solutions documents

Himanshu,

I don't see the disconnect between what Ali is saying below and what I said.
They may be different statements but I don't see that that means they
disagree. Unfortunately I don't see how to resolve your difficulties. Mick

-----Original Message-----
From: Himanshu Shah [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:43 PM
To: Ali Sajassi; [email protected]; Norman Finn; Muneyoshi Suzuki;
Tony Jeffree; Les Bell; Paul Congdon; Neil Jarvis
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Comments on the L2 VPN framework and solutions documents


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