RE: VPLS naming issues
"Hamid Ould-Brahim" <[email protected]> Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:13:23 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ppvpn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C339BB.83F4686A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Eric, > > My thinking is that the Generalized FEC Id is a naming > mechanism which > provides everything that is needed for VPLS, but which also > can cover more > applications. So I don't really see the downside. > I haven't seen this subject line before (I guess I didn't realize that Vach's email on timeslot request included items to be discussed). I agree that VPN-ID TLV doesn't address the scope of deployment scenarios that a VPLS system needs to consider and particularly distributed VPLS case. I am not sure I understand why Vach is insisting on VPN-ID TLV since clearly it requires extra work that has already been done within PWE3 wg and l2vpn drafts proposals (which pretty much address Vach's main requirements and other l2vpn requirements). Besides that any VPN-ID proposal will need to be standardized...why go through all of that while we do have an approach that is already available and documented. I thought initially the motivation behind VCID is to line up with Martini's initial signaling model (PWid FEC), but with the introduction of a VPN-ID TLV that goal disappears anyway. Are there clearly new requirements or technical benefits that justify defining a new VPN-ID TLV besides just using the Generalized ID FEC? Hamid. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C339BB.83F4686A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE></TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>Eric,</FONT></DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2></FONT> <DIV><BR><FONT size=2><FONT face="Courier New">><BR>> My thinking is that the Generalized FEC Id is a naming <BR>> mechanism which<BR>> provides everything that is needed for VPLS, but which also<BR>> can cover more<BR>> applications. So I don't really see the downside.<BR>></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face="Courier New"></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face="Courier New"> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>I haven't seen this subject line before (I guess I didn't realize</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that Vach's email on timeslot request included items to be </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>discussed).</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>I agree that VPN-ID TLV doesn't address the scope of</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>deployment scenarios that a VPLS system needs to consider</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>and particularly distributed VPLS case</FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>I am not sure I understand why Vach is insisting on VPN-ID</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>TLV since clearly it </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>requires extra work that has already been done </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>within PWE3 wg </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>and l2vpn drafts proposals </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>(which pretty much address </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>Vach's main </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>requirements and other l2vpn requirements). Besides that any </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>VPN-ID proposal will need </FONT>to be standardized...why go through all of </DIV> <DIV>that while we do have an approach that is already available and </DIV> <DIV>documented. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I thought initially the motivation behind VCID is to line up</DIV> <DIV>with Martini's initial signaling model (PWid FEC), but with</DIV> <DIV>the introduction of a VPN-ID TLV that goal disappears anyway.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Are there clearly new requirements or technical benefits</DIV> <DIV>that justify defining a new VPN-ID TLV besides just</DIV> <DIV>using the Generalized ID FEC?</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hamid.</FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C339BB.83F4686A--