Timeslot to discuss VPLS issues

Loa/Rick,

Can I get a timeslot to discuss some VPLS issues in draft-lasserre-vkompella
(soon to be submitted as draft-ietf-ppvpn-vpls-ldp-00.txt which is substantively
the same as draft-lasserre-vkompella-ppvpn-vpls-04)?  These are the issues:

1.  The VC type has changed from 0xb (VPLS) to 0x5 (ethernet).  Most people have
implemented VPLS using 0xb, but the newer implementations use 0x5.  It's not the
value, but the concept here that is at question: if the VC type is no different
from a pt2pt ethernet PW, then how does one distinguish a group of pt2pt PWs
from a group of split-horizon PWs?  One idea is to use an optional parameter,
say Split horizon Group ID, to name a split horizon group of PWs.  This would
give us both the capability to identify whether a PW is split horizon enabled or
not, as well as extend the notion of split-horizon-ness to groups.

2.  Naming the VPLS: currently the name of the VPLS is the VCID.  This is not
adequate.  I proposed a VPN ID TLV.  Eric proposed a Generalized ID FEC.  I'd
like to get this resolved as to which direction we should proceed.  I have
already raised this issue on the mailing list, and would like to get some more
feedback before Vienna.

What I would like is to be able to name the VPLS, name each PW in the VPLS,
identify each PW with a VC type, and associate each PW with a split-horizon
group.  Apart from causing inconsistencies between draft versions, this also
impacts progress on the hvpls oam draft, so I'd like this cleaned up asap.
Thanks.

Vach Kompella
TiMetra Networks
[email protected]
650-237-5152