Subject: RE: L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 112

From: "Sam Cao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:32:18 +0800

Hi all,

I am not interested in this draft because the existing L2VPN solution also
can deploy light-weight VPLS. In addition, we don't see the implied
shortages while deploying L2VPN mentioned in "IS-IS VPLS" draft in data
center. I also don't see any benefits that an IS-IS version might offer.

Thanks,

Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 112

If you have received this digest without all the individual message
attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list
subscription.  To do so, go to 

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn

Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get
MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option
globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.

Send L2vpn mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of L2vpn digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Interest in IS-IS VPLS (Giles Heron)
   2. Re: Interest in IS-IS VPLS (Rogers, Josh)
   3. Re: Interest in IS-IS VPLS (Mallette, Edwin J.)
   4. RE: Interest in IS-IS VPLS (Lucy yong)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:57:19 +0100
From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Interest in IS-IS VPLS
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"

Hi,

At the IETF meeting in Paris I took an action (as noted in the minutes) to
poll the WG to see if there was any interest (other than by the authors of
course) in progressing the IS-IS VPLS draft.

Would you please respond to this email indicating whether or not you have
interest in seeing this draft progress, ideally giving reasoning for your
position.  It'd be especially interesting to see responses from service
providers of course.

If there are no (or very few) responses to this email then Nabil and I will
probably interpret that as meaning there's insufficient interest to
progress.  Of course it may just mean that you all missed this email in the
deluge of debate on E-Tree ;)

Giles

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:44:16 -0400
From: "Rogers, Josh" <[email-masked]>
To: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
	<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Interest in IS-IS VPLS
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I am not interested.  I prefer already available methods of doing Layer 2
VPN (intentionally avoiding the term VPLS here), and don't see or
appreciate any benefits that an ISIS version might offer.

-Josh

On 4/27/12 7:57 AM, "Giles Heron" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>At the IETF meeting in Paris I took an action (as noted in the minutes) to
>poll the WG to see if there was any interest (other than by the authors of
>course) in progressing the IS-IS VPLS draft.
>
>Would you please respond to this email indicating whether or not you have
>interest in seeing this draft progress, ideally giving reasoning for your
>position.  It'd be especially interesting to see responses from service
>providers of course.
>
>If there are no (or very few) responses to this email then Nabil and I
>will
>probably interpret that as meaning there's insufficient interest to
>progress.  Of course it may just mean that you all missed this email in
>the
>deluge of debate on E-Tree ;)
>
>Giles
>
>

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this
E-mail and any printout.

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:30:44 +0000
From: "Mallette, Edwin J." <[email-masked]>
To: "Rogers, Josh" <[email-masked]>, Giles Heron
	<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Interest in IS-IS VPLS
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I'm also not interested in seeing the ISIS-VPLS draft progress.  My
rationale for this is very similar to the reasons Josh listed below.

Regards,

Ed

On 4/27/12 4:44 PM, "Rogers, Josh" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I am not interested.  I prefer already available methods of doing Layer 2
>VPN (intentionally avoiding the term VPLS here), and don't see or
>appreciate any benefits that an ISIS version might offer.
>
>-Josh
>
>
>On 4/27/12 7:57 AM, "Giles Heron" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>At the IETF meeting in Paris I took an action (as noted in the minutes)
>>to
>>poll the WG to see if there was any interest (other than by the authors
>>of
>>course) in progressing the IS-IS VPLS draft.
>>
>>Would you please respond to this email indicating whether or not you have
>>interest in seeing this draft progress, ideally giving reasoning for your
>>position.  It'd be especially interesting to see responses from service
>>providers of course.
>>
>>If there are no (or very few) responses to this email then Nabil and I
>>will
>>probably interpret that as meaning there's insufficient interest to
>>progress.  Of course it may just mean that you all missed this email in
>>the
>>deluge of debate on E-Tree ;)
>>
>>Giles
>>
>>
>
>
>This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
>copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
>for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
>are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
>that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in
>relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly
>prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in
>error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the
>original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

________________________________

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain information that is
privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are
not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy it.

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:43:21 +0000
From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
To: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
	<[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Interest in IS-IS VPLS
Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D3264C7F8@dfweml505-mbx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Giles,

It seems that the IS-IS VPLS provides the solution for a scalable data
center network as mentioned in the draft. I am not sure it is proper to
weight service providers more on this. I can see if a service provider
already deployed existing VPLS, the gain from IS-IS VPLS is less than the
cost on upgrading all the edge devices to support the solution. 

However, for data center network, IS-IS VPLS could be a useful solution. It
simplifies current VPLS mechanism, provides a good scalability, and requires
IP only function on core switches. 

A vendor provides devices for both service provider network and data center
network, the solution brings a synergy in leveraging VPLS solution into DC. 

Thus, I like to see this work moving forward.

Regards,
Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Giles Heron
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 7:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Interest in IS-IS VPLS

Hi,

At the IETF meeting in Paris I took an action (as noted in the minutes) to
poll the WG to see if there was any interest (other than by the authors of
course) in progressing the IS-IS VPLS draft.

Would you please respond to this email indicating whether or not you have
interest in seeing this draft progress, ideally giving reasoning for your
position.  It'd be especially interesting to see responses from service
providers of course.

If there are no (or very few) responses to this email then Nabil and I will
probably interpret that as meaning there's insufficient interest to
progress.  Of course it may just mean that you all missed this email in the
deluge of debate on E-Tree ;)

Giles

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
L2vpn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn

End of L2vpn Digest, Vol 95, Issue 112
**************************************