Subject: RE: VPLS model for L2VPN Framework document

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:34:22 +0100

Eric

 > If we want to  allow the PE bridges to be part  of a larger 
 > bridged network,
 > it would be desirable for this  model to be supported by the 
 > VPLS framework.
 > This would require:
 > 
 > - the PE contains a single bridge entity
 > 
 > - that bridge entity contains a single "port" to the emulated LAN
 > 
 > - each distinct  VLAN on  the emulated  LAN is replaced  by a  distinct
VPLS instance (an "emulated VLAN")
 > 
 > - a further distinct  VPLS instance is used to  carry the "untagged
packets" of the emulated LAN.

Is the intention here to create 1 VPLS control instance (i) per customer or
(ii) per service provider network?

If the answer is (i) per customer, then this does not sound very scalable or
attractive from a provisioning perspective. If the answer is (ii) per
service provider network, then what traffic will be carried over the control
VPLS? Untagged customer frames or untagged service provider frames, either
way this sounds like it may lead to security concerns.

Thanks,

Richard

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:29:21 -0400

Richard> Is the  intention here  to create 1  VPLS control instance  (i) per
Richard> customer

No. 

Richard>  or (ii) per service provider network? 

Not necessarily limited to one per service provider network. 

However, this would be a deployment consideration, I think.

Richard> what  traffic  will be  carried  over  the  control VPLS?  Untagged
Richard> customer  frames or  untagged service  provider frames,  either way
Richard> this sounds like it may lead to security concerns.

I  think "untagged  service provider  frames" is  the answer.   What  is the
security concern?