RE: VPLS model for L2VPN Framework document

Eric

Is the sole purpose of the untagged VPLS instance to carry service provider
BPDUs? If so there aren't any security concerns as all other untagged frames
can simply be dropped. However, I think the general term "untagged packets"
is misleading:

- a further distinct  VPLS instance is used to  carry the "untagged packets"
  of the emulated LAN.

Perhaps replacing "untagged packets" with "Service provider BPDUs" would
provide clarification on exactly what traffic can be carried using this VPLS
instance?

Richard

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[email protected]]
 > Sent: 29 May 2003 15:29
 > To: Spencer,R,Richard,XGH5 R
 > Cc: [email protected]
 > Subject: Re: VPLS model for L2VPN Framework document 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > Richard> Is the  intention here  to create 1  VPLS control 
 > instance  (i) per
 > Richard> customer
 > 
 > No. 
 > 
 > Richard>  or (ii) per service provider network? 
 > 
 > Not necessarily limited to one per service provider network. 
 > 
 > However, this would be a deployment consideration, I think.
 > 
 > Richard> what  traffic  will be  carried  over  the  control 
 > VPLS?  Untagged
 > Richard> customer  frames or  untagged service  provider 
 > frames,  either way
 > Richard> this sounds like it may lead to security concerns.
 > 
 > I  think "untagged  service provider  frames" is  the 
 > answer.   What  is the
 > security concern? 
 >