l2vpn framework issue
Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> Tue, 29 July 2003 17:10 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01182 for <l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:10:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hXzE-0003Re-D7 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:10:08 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6THA85M013236 for l2vpn-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:10:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hXzE-0003RP-9W for l2vpn-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:10:08 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01163 for <l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:10:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hXzC-00004x-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:10:06 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hXzB-00004t-00 for l2vpn-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:10:05 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hXz7-0003Qw-R8; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:10:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hXyQ-0003QP-79 for l2vpn@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:09:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01145 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:09:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hXyO-00004S-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:09:16 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hXyN-00003s-00 for l2vpn@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:09:15 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2003 10:11:26 -0700
Received: from cisco.com (erosen-u10.cisco.com [161.44.70.36]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6TH8hAi029759; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:08:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200307291708.h6TH8hAi029759@rtp-core-2.cisco.com>
To: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: l2vpn framework issue
Reply-to: erosen@cisco.com
User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (UnebigoryĆmae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:08:43 -0400
From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
Sender: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2vpn-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Awhile back we had a discussion of the VPLS model in this doc, but that discussion is not reflected in draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2-framework-00.txt which is now being last called. My proposal is to add the following text at the end of section 2.2 (just before section 2.2.1). I think this text does the proper job for a framework document, i.e., places the controversial issue in context while leaving the resolution of the controversy to the solutions work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This framework specifies that each "bridge module" has a single "Emulated LAN interface". It does not specify the number of bridge modules that a VPLS-PE may contain, nor does it specify the number of VPLS instances which may attach to a bridge module over a single "Emulated LAN interface". Thus the framework is compatible with at least the following three models: - Model 1 A VPLS-PE contains a single bridge module, and supports a single VPLS instance. The VPLS instance is an Emulated LAN; if that Emulated LAN contains VLANs, 802.1Q tagging must be used to indicate which packets are in which VLANs. - Model 2 A VPLS-PE contains a single bridge module, but supports multiple VPLS instances. Each VPLS instance is thought of as a VLAN (in effect, an "Emulated VLAN"), and the set of VPLS instances are treated as a set of VLANs on a common LAN. - Model 3 A VPLS-PE contains an arbitrary number of bridge modules, each of which attaches to a single VPLS instance. There may be other models as well, some of which are combinations of the 3 models above. Different models may have different characteristics, and different scopes of applicability. Each VPLS solution should specify the model or models that it is supporting. This framework does not specify the way in which bridge control protocols are used on the Emulated LANs.
- l2vpn framework issue Eric Rosen
- Re: l2vpn framework issue Ali Sajassi