Subject: draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt

From: "Christopher N. \"Nick\" DelRegno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:26:30 -0500

Rick/Marco:

I support "draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt" becoming a working group
draft.

As 2547 VPNs have been successful for many service providers, it seems
unreasonable to dismiss a similar approach for L2 VPNs without further
study because there is another way to do it.  Draft-kompella would allow
service providers to leverage existing RFC2547 networks to provide L2
VPNs as well.  Both "draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt" and
"draft-lasserre-vkompella-ppvpn-vpls-04.txt" have merit and should be
brought into the working group and worked.

Thanks,

Nick DelRegno

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:19:32 -0400

At 01:26 PM 4/18/2003 -0500, Christopher N. \"Nick\" DelRegno wrote:

>Rick/Marco:
>
>
>
>I support draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txtbecoming a working group draft.
>
>
>
>service providers to leverage existing RFC2547 networks to provide L2 VPNs 
>as well.  Both draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txtand 
>draft-lasserre-vkompella-ppvpn-vpls-04.txthave merit and should be brought 
>into the working group and worked.

         Nick, there is a big difference between investigation and
the WG actually agreeing to work on something. Individual drafts are
appropriate containers for the former, but once the WG has adopted a
draft it means that it is something that we endorse (and probably will
eventually ask to move to proposed standard).  Although I would agree
with you that there seems to be evidence that people want to at least
investigate the K.Kompella approach, there seem to be architectural
issues related to this approach that merit more investigation before
moving forward.

         --Tom

http://www.elsevier-international.com/catalogue/title.cfm?ISBN=155860751X

---

From: "Christopher N. \"Nick\" DelRegno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:30:14 -0500

Tom:

While I am aware of the IETF standards process, it never hurts to
reiterate it.  I certainly hope that we can consider moving both toward
an endorsement.  I see merit in both VPLS approaches, especially in a
phased approach where at one stage (or network size) one approach makes
more sense than the other.  I don't see these drafts competing as much
as others seem to.  We have tested implementations of both drafts and
can see uses for them both.

My concern is that if these drafts are seen as directly competing, once
we take Lasserre-VKompella into the working group, the KKompella draft
will be that much more difficult to take to proposed standard.  It is
important to me that we better understand the implications of BGP vs
BGP+LDP, as has already been mentioned on the list.  

I believe that neither draft is error-free or done, and both have
unanswered architectural questions.

Regards,
Nick

Christopher N. "Nick" DelRegno, Advisory Engineer
MCI, Global Access Technology Development
400 International Pkwy, 1010/041
Richardson, TX  75081-2886
Tel:  972-729-3411
Fax:  972-729-3249
Email: [email-masked]
Pager: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 2:20 PM
To: Christopher N. "Nick" DelRegno; [email-masked]; 'Rick
Wilder'; Marco Carugi
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-ppvpn-vpls-01.txt

>service providers to leverage existing RFC2547 networks to provide L2
VPNs 

         --Tom

http://www.elsevier-international.com/catalogue/title.cfm?ISBN=155860751
X