Re: Draft charter for L2VPN

> > Matt> I'd  like  to  include  an  objective  that the  VPLS  services  are
> > Matt> transparent to higher layer protocols (e.g. really emulated a LAN) 
> > I  would be  opposed to  this  as  a  charter  requirement. This  kind  of
> > requirement can  easily get you into a situation in which you  end up doing
> > 90% of the  work to handle a 1% problem. Given  a particular solution which
> > doesn't quite meet this requirement,the WG should be able to decide whether
> > the solution comes close enough or not; this  shouldn't be predetermined by
> > the charter.
> If this requirement is not met, then we're not really providing a 
> virtual X service (X=FR, X=Ethernet, etc.).  If the group is chartered 
> to define new service types, and I'm not saying it can't be, thats fine. 
>   But a virtual Ethernet wire that requires applications to be aware of 
> the virualness of the wire has a high cost of entry.

I agree with Matt.

I think the solution(s) doesn't need to perfectly conform with the original
technology. However, it must not violate the standards for interworking 
with existing implementations. And it must be robust and must not cause 
fatal problems such as loop, blackhole, and flaky PEs.

Thanks,

Muneyoshi Suzuki
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp.