Re: Draft charter for L3VPN

I strongly believe that Juha's points merit a serious consideration.

A VPN solution must be able to span as many providers as 
needed to connect an organization. This requirement may be much
more useful in the European context given that  businesses there
operate in many countries while many carriers may not operate 
outside their local operating regions.

If  BGP/MPLS VPNS can be a charter item, it is hard to
understand why this group's charter can exclude proposals
such as Juha's Radius based approach  which does provide
a simple and perhaps much more manageable environment 
for multi-carrier VPNs. Every approach should be discussed
at its own merit.

Regards,

--brijesh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Juha Heinanen" <[email protected]>
To: "Pedro Roque Marques" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Alex Zinin" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:02 PM
Subject: Draft charter for L3VPN


> Pedro Roque Marques writes:
> 
>  > > looks like I in Ietf doesn't mean Internet anymore.
>  > 
>  > I'm not sure i understand the comment. The Internet is a public
>  > network, a VPN a private one. Do you mean to refer to Internet access
>  > from a VPN ? inter-action between the two ? I would believe that to be
>  > in scope. Alex, would you please clarify ?
> 
> what i meant was that ietf should work on solutions that work across the
> internet, not just within a single as.  if a vpn according to a
> particular solution cannot span more than one as, the solution is
> completely useless to us, because in our own network alone there are
> five-to-six different ases as the result of mergers with and purchases
> of other providers.
> 
> also, a regional provider like us needs to have partnerships with other
> providers that cover other parts of the world.  therefore it is almost
> as important to us that a vpn according to a given solution can span
> more than one provider.
> 
> for example, consider the case where we provide a vpn solution for a
> given customer that initially only has sites within our own network and
> then suddenly they want to add another site is china, where we do not
> operate?  it would be very unfortunate if we would need at that point to
> switch from a single provider vpn solution to a multi-provider solution
> also for the old sites.  
> 
> therefore, i don't see much point in postponing the multi-provider
> aspects either.
> 
> -- juha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>