RE: Draft charter for L2VPN - IPLS & ARP Mediation

The question was stated very clearly and was intended to get feedback from 
the operators and to ensure that we are all working under the same assumption.

IPLS has been designed and optimized for VPLS-challenged PE routers. In 
other words, PE routers that perform IPLS are not expected to perform VPLS 
functionality.

All I want to do is to make sure that operators are O.K. with it. In other 
words, to have one PE for IPLS functionality and another for VPLS 
functionality. In cases that the operator doesn't need to offer VPLS 
functionality, then all they need is an IPLS-capable PE. I just want to 
confirm if that's what the operators expect.

-Ali
At 08:54 AM 5/15/2003 -0400, Himanshu Shah wrote:
>Its a dubious question.
>
>It appears to indicate that if South Bell
>is planning to offer VPLS, he should not
>support the IPLS draft. It is particularly
>disturbing to have it asked in response
>to his individual technical opinion.
>
>/himanshu
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ali Sajassi [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:26 PM
> > To: Himanshu Shah; Ali Sajassi; [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >