RE: decisions on L2 solutions documents

Eric,

> 
> Vach: <VPNid, PE1, PE2, Vcid>
> 
> Eric: <VPNid, PE1, PE2, VCid at PE1, VCid at PE2>
> 

Yes. I think Vach wanted to keep exactly
the same model for PW provisioning as
in Martini without configuring SAII, TAII to
reflect VCID. But I agree from
signaling point of view it is the same.


> That is, the only difference is whether to have a VCid which 
> is unique for a
> given pair of PEs, and have  that VCid provisioned at both 
> ends, vs. whether
> to allow each end to use a different VCid. 
> 

Yes. I think that is the difference, and I say ability
to support an auto-discovery mechanism is an important
aspect of a VPLS solution. If both ends of pw are configured 
then there is no point of using an auto-discovery
mechanism. Not sure that is acceptable.

[clipped]...

> 
> We could  compromise by  allowing a one-name  format and a  
> two-name format,
> keeping  the one-name  format for  VPLS and  HVPLS, and  
> using  the two-name
> format only where  is it really required.  However,  I think 
> that compromise
> would result in something which is more complicated than it 
> needs to be. 
> 

I'd rather prefer one format. Let's not redo the same thing
as in pw control draft. Two exclusive formats may imply the
need to support compatibility procedures, etc (and I don't see 
how interoperability can be achieved with two formats).

Hamid.