RE: Draft charter for L2VPN - IPLS & ARP Mediation

At 10:57 AM 5/15/2003 +0000, Giles Heron wrote:
>OK, I'll bite ;-)
>
>personally I'd rather deploy IPLS than VPLS given the choice, though I
>accept that some of our customers may demand VPLS.
>
>IPLS meets the requirement for which I originally envisaged VPLS being
>useful (i.e. interconnecting IP routers or hosts) and does this more
>efficiently than VPLS.  I would be reluctant to use VPLS to interconnect
>switches, as that exposes the SP to the customer network's MAC
>addresses, but I can see why this might be attractive to customers in
>the metropolitan area at least.

Both IPLS and VPLS learn customer MAC addresses. IPLS does it in control 
plane and VPLS does it in data plane. Also in VPLS, number of customer MAC 
addresses can be limited per VPLS instance - this is one of the main 
requirements.

-Ali


>However in terms of what we'll offer it depends to an extent on what
>vendors provide.  I'm not aware of anyone shipping IPLS code yet...
>
>Giles
>
>On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 00:26, Ali Sajassi wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>--
>=================================================================
>Giles Heron    Principal Network Architect    PacketExchange Ltd.
>ph: +44 7880 506185              "if you build it they will yawn"
>=================================================================