Subject: Draft charter for L2VPN

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 17:59:41 -0400 (EDT)

Hello Alex,

One small comment.

I know that this does not matter to some, but IMHO if this new group
happens, an indication of the WG cooperation with IEEE 802.1 should be
part of the charter to add clarity.

Thanks,
-Ben

---

From: "Moranganti, Ashwin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:00:11 -0500

I would also like to extend my support for the inclusion of the "Arp Mediation" and "IPLS drafts".

Ashwin

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 1:34 PM
To: Alex Zinin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Draft charter for L2VPN

Two  L2VPN  charter issues  that  come up  frequently  are  (a) whether  ARP
Mediation  (for  allowing  IP traffic  on  a  p2p  link between  two  unlike
attachment  circuits) falls  into the  charter,  and (b)  whether IPLS  (for
allowing LAN-like connectivity among a  set of IP routers, without requiring
MAC learning,  BPDUs, etc.)  falls into the  charter.  If there  is actually
going to  be an L2VPN charter, I'd  like to see this  settled, preferably in
favor of including these efforts.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 15:40:31 -0400

yes...definitely include both...

/bb

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 1:34 PM
To: Alex Zinin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Draft charter for L2VPN

Two  L2VPN  charter issues  that  come up  frequently  are  (a) whether
ARP
Mediation  (for  allowing  IP traffic  on  a  p2p  link between  two
unlike
attachment  circuits) falls  into the  charter,  and (b)  whether IPLS
(for
allowing LAN-like connectivity among a  set of IP routers, without
requiring
MAC learning,  BPDUs, etc.)  falls into the  charter.  If there  is
actually
going to  be an L2VPN charter, I'd  like to see this  settled, preferably
in
favor of including these efforts.

---

From: Matt Squire <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 01:48:24 -0400 (GMT)

-------Original Message-------
From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Sent: 05/14/03 04:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Draft charter for L2VPN

The  issue  of  what constitutes  a  virtual  service  arose when  PWE3 
was
chartered.  The PWE3 charter states: 

  PWE3 will not strive for pseudo wires to perfectly emulate the
  characteristics of the native service.  For each type of pseudo
  wire, an applicability statement will describe the degree of
  similarity of a pseudo wire to the native service it emulates.

The same should apply to VPLS.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 15:34:18 -0400

I'm neutral on IPLS (let the debate continue) but I certainly agree that 
ARP meditation is important and should be included in the WG charter 
(whether there's one or two WGs, it should still be in there as a L2 work 
item).

Thanks,
Andy

--------

At 5/14/2003 03:40 PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>ARP Mediation  (for  allowing  IP traffic  on  a  p2p  link between  two 
>unlike attachment  circuits) falls  into the  charter,  and (b)  whether 
>IPLS (for allowing LAN-like connectivity among a  set of IP routers, 
>without requiring MAC learning,  BPDUs, etc.)  falls into 
>the  charter.  If there  is actually going to  be an L2VPN charter, 
>I'd  like to see this  settled, preferably in favor of including these efforts.