RE: Draft charter for L2VPN - IPLS & ARP Mediation

Why am I not surprised to hear from you first :-)
My questions was directed to the providers and I'd like to know which 
providers are considering to offer IPLS and get some feedback from them:

How many are considering to offer IPLS in lieu of VPLS ? and
How many are considering to offer both IPLS and VPLS ?

-Ali

At 05:29 PM 5/14/2003 -0400, Himanshu Shah wrote:
>That is like asking for every draft that
>Cisco employee has contributed whether Cisco
>is planning to implement it?
>
>IETF operates on individual contributions
>and opinions.
>
>/himanshu
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ali Sajassi [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:56 PM
> > To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Draft charter for L2VPN - IPLS & ARP Mediation
> >
> >
> >
> > >I'd like to see the work in this area - IPLS & ARP Mediation
> > -progressed and
> > >documented in a published RFC. They are not the most widely
> > deployed cases,
> > >but they do exist and  have real network applications.
> >
> > Steven,
> >
> > Does Bell South plan to offer VPLS ? If it plans to offer it,
> > then there
> > should be no need for IPLS because VPLS can be considered as
> > a super-set
> > since it covers both switches and routers as CEs and it
> > supports both IP
> > and non-IP traffic. Also inter-operability between IPLS and
> > VPLS is another
> > thing to consider if you plan to offer both !! However, if
> > Bell South plans
> > to offer IPLS in lieu of VPLS and assumes that all the
> > end-points for a
> > transparent LAN service are IPs, then that's a different story.
> >
> > -Ali
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >