RE: Draft charter for L2VPN - IPLS & ARP Mediation

Ali,

> 
> 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.
> 

Not sure I understand your conclusion. IPLS looks designed for 
IP-based CEs. I am not sure why a PE that provides IPLS service 
cannot provide as well VPLS service to other CEs 
(for example LAN switches) - if that PE can handle both -. 
The operator has the choice anyway given the situation and
what functionality is supported on that PE.

> 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. 

If an operator plans to provide IPLS or VPLS
wouldn't she/he engineer the PE to meet the vpls/ipls requirements?

>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.
> 

You may be asking fair question, I just don't see why an
operator needs two distinct PEs if it needs to
offer both IPLS and VPLS?

Looking at the IPLS draft, I may agree with you that there
is too much emphasis that an IPLS-capable-PE is a PE
that cannot provide VPLS service while in fact - in my
opinion - it should state that if an operator knows apriori
that the CEs are all IP host/routers, then an IPLS like
service may be offered (to what extent it simplifies/optimize
the PE compared to VPLS service needs to be known)...and IPLS 
(as Steven pointed out) is considered just additional tool in 
an operator toolbox (unless in your question you wanted 
to refer/point to something else).

Hamid.