Re: Draft charter for L3VPN: Internet transparency

At 10:40 AM 5/13/2003 -0700, Alex Zinin wrote:
>Eric,
>
>Alex>> Is this specific to the case of 2547 only or generic to all L3
>Alex>> mechanisms? If the former, I would rather not like the charter to say
>Alex>> so.
>
> > I think this  applies to all the schemes.  Even  the CE-based schemes 
> aren't
> > viable, in my opinion, over the  public Internet because issues of QoS, 
> SLA,
> > and accountability really  prevent a company from using  the public 
> Internet
> > as the backbone for its intranet.
>
>I understand your position. I'd like to see more opinions here.


[This thread was about whether an updated L3 vpn wg charter should not 
specify the ability to operate across the public Internet as an objective.]

I would contend that the VR and CE-based solutions are viable across the 
public Internet, in a way that 2547 is not.  Yes, QOS and SLA are issues, 
but folks have been deploying CE-based VPNs on the Internet for years; 
evidently they don't consider these a show-stopper.  And the VR-based 
approach is similar to the CE-based approach as far as the impact of 
running across the Internet is concerned.

I do think that 2547 IS appropriate for the wg to pursue.  However 
different tools (alone or used together) are optimal for different 
situations and that is why we have multiple L3 vpn approaches.

Should the charter REQUIRE solutions to be viable across the 
Internet?  No.  Should it encourage development of 1 or more solutions that 
are viable across the Internet?  Yes.

--Mark