RE: decisions on L2 solutions documents

Loa/Rick

My whish was to have these questions public before the decision was made, so
we will be  more effective to defend our postion.
While your questions are reasonable and important for the debate, I do have
my self couple of clarifications that I would like to be addressed:

- these are the only questions regarding the draft?
- the decision for GVPLS as WD is revocable or depends how satisfactory 
  are the answers to such questions? 
- if the decision is not irrevocable, do we have a deadline till the debate
would proof positive or not ? A new version of the draft, that would addres
your questions, would  a prefer way to go
- can we recognize that it was support in the  group from both vendors and
SPs? 

I would try to answer to your questions during the next days. However, I
would like to invite other people to participate in the debate, that have
supported the draft, and they know GVPLS is working in the field and is
scalable as  is defined in the draft.

In a simplistic view, I see the following relationship:
- vpls < hvpls < gvpls

VPLS is the default one - probable every vendor thought about this solution.

HVPLS was invented because VPLS doesn't scale and impose some restrictions
that would be hard  validated in the real field. HVPLS does scale in only
one dimension - VC-LABEL space.
GVPLS was invented to increase the scalability in multiple dimensions, and
to distribute the load between different network components so the network
performance and stability is maintained. As any other solution a this level,
there are  more "liberal" ideas proposed in the draft [like M2P], and
probable they request more time to be incorporated in the current cycle of
thinking. 

Cheers
   Vasile 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wilder [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 6:34 PM
To: Loa Andersson; Ould-Brahim, Hamid [CAR:1A00:EXCH]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: decisions on L2 solutions documents



Agreed, Loa.

Here are the questions/requests-for-clarification that came up. 

    a) how do the discovery and signaling parts of the document
       relate to those described in the other solutions documents and which
       of them are suggested to be mandatory to implement

    b) what is the status of the MAC-in-MAC encapsulation work in IEEE?

    c) for the case where the U-PE network is a completely ethernet
       switched network, and encapsulation like MAC-in-MAC is used,
       what part of the architecture belongs to the IETF?

    c) definition of M2P PWs is outside the scope of this WG and
       probably should go to PWE3

    d) how does the definition of semantics of the PW CW given
       in the document relate to those defined in the PWE3 WG?

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:08 PM
To: Hamid Ould-Brahim
Cc: Rick Wilder; [email protected]
Subject: Re: decisions on L2 solutions documents

Rick,

the question from Hamid is what I should call "loaded". The real issue here
is (evn if you felt you had the wg support from the mailing list at the
time, which I don't know), that the issues the AD / wg chair discussion
should be made available to the list/wg.

Review results may change how you feel about making things wg doc or not,
even if they come form ADs :)

Mailing list discussion of those review results may lift or confirm those
conserns.

/Loa

Hamid Ould-Brahim wrote:
> Rick,
> 
>  >
>  > - GVPLS/LPE draft-radoaca-ppvpn-gvpls-01.txt : This draft is  > not 
> made a WG document at this time. Several questions have  > come up 
> regarding this document during discussions between  > the ADs and WG 
> chairs. In order to make an informed decision,  > these questions will 
> be posted shortly to begin a discussion.  >
> 
> In your opinion as ppvpn chair was there consensus on the mailing list 
> that this draft should advance to WG doc status?
> 
> Hamid.
> 


-- 
/Loa

mobile + 46 739 81 21 64
email: [email protected]