Re: Draft charter for L2VPN

If existing routers and bridges cannot expect an emulated LAN service,
and cannot work properly using VPLS, how useful are the solutions then? 
I think it is a requirement that VPLS emulate a LAN (appear as a LAN to
higher layer protocols), otherwise I am afraid the WG may not be
producing useful work.

Regards
Cheng-Yin

Muneyoshi Suzuki wrote:
> 
> > > 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.