Subject: Re: draft-lasserre-vkompella-ppvpn-vpls as working group draft

From: Du Wenhua <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 06:47:32 +0800

Hi,Rick Wilder,
   I support it to become a WG draft.

BTW, one qustion as follow:
In setction 11 of the draft-lasserre-vkompella-ppvpn-vpls-04.txt, it say:

*   11.  Hierarchical VPLS model using Ethernet Access Network 
     .....
*   One approach of tunneling a customer?s Ethernet traffic via an 
*   Ethernet access network is to add an additional VLAN tag to the 
*   customer?s data (either tagged or untagged). The additional tag is 
*   referred to as Provider?s VLAN (P-VLAN). Inside the provider?s 
*   network each P-VLAN designates a customer or more specifically a VPLS 
**   instance for that customer. Therefore, there is a one to one 
**   correspondence between a P-VLAN and a VPLS instance.    

   In my option, the last sentece in above is not true. There is also a many-to-one correspondence between a P-VLAN and a VPLS instance, not only a one-to-one.  i.e, a customer with P-VLAN 3 and another customer with P-VLAN 4 belong to the same VPLS.
    Muchmore,  to PE-rs the ethernet port is not a traditional standard port. When flooding, PE-rs need to send more than one copy in one ehternet port, because there are serveral custumers in one ethernet port each have different P-VLAN.

 　　　　　　　　Du Wenhua

>As noted in the minutes, at the San Francisco meeting strong interest
>was expressed in pursuing the "draft-lasserre-vkompella-ppvpn-vpls" as a
>working group draft. We agreed to finalize that decision only after the
>WG participants who weren't there could have a say.
> 
>So, if there are opinions that have not been heard, now is the time, and
>this list is the place. Let's set a one-week limit to conclude this
>issue.
> 
>Rick
> 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>From the minutes:
> 
>Alex: For a document to become a WG draft, it doesn't have to be 100
>correct.  It can become a WG document if it is a good start.
>Matt: I wanted to make the same comment.  
> 
>[snipped] 
> Marco: asked for show of hands to make this a wG draft. 
>Strong interest was shown in room. Further discussion on the list. 
>

---

From: Ali Sajassi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 08:23:10 -0700

At 06:47 AM 4/15/2003 +0800, Du Wenhua wrote:
>    In my option, the last sentece in above is not true. There is also a 
> many-to-one correspondence between a P-VLAN and a VPLS instance, not only 
> a one-to-one.  i.e, a customer with P-VLAN 3 and another customer with 
> P-VLAN 4 belong to the same VPLS.
>     Muchmore,  to PE-rs the ethernet port is not a traditional standard 
> port. When flooding, PE-rs need to send more than one copy in one 
> ehternet port, because there are serveral custumers in one ethernet port 
> each have different P-VLAN.

If two customer share the same VPLS instance, then you would use a single 
P-VLAN for both of those customers - e.g., there is one-to-one mapping 
between P-VLAN and VPLS within a given access domain (different QinQ 
domain). If you're talking about different access domain, then there can be 
different P-VLANs maps into the same VPLS and if that's your comment, then 
I would agree and we can clarify the text.

-Ali

>  ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Du Wenhua
>
>
>
>
>