RE: VPLS model for L2VPN Framework document

At 05:33 PM 5/29/2003 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>Eric
>
>Is the sole purpose of the untagged VPLS instance to carry service provider
>BPDUs?

Basically yes.

>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?

Or we can say "SP untagged packets - e.g., BPDUs".

-Ali


>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?
>  >