RE: Draft charter for L2VPN - IPLS & ARP Mediation

>
>
>If VPLS is used to interconnect switches then it will learn MAC
>addresses behind the CEs.  Sure, you can limit the number of MACs - and
>if I deploy VPLS then I will do so - but that brings other issues (e.g.
>if that limit is hit then how do we automatically inform the customer
>that this is the cause of the partial connectivity on the VPN).

Yes, this is a good question which has also been asked by some providers 
and there are several options - one of which to notify the customer through 
UNI (ELMI) or some other means (when getting close to the limit). One can 
ask the same question for IPLS since many end-points can sit behind an AC 
and whether there should be a limit on number of of IP end-points since 
each end-point consumes resources in the PE.

-Ali


>Giles
>
> > -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"
> > >=================================================================
> >
> >
>--
>=================================================================
>Giles Heron    Principal Network Architect    PacketExchange Ltd.
>ph: +44 7880 506185              "if you build it they will yawn"
>=================================================================