RE: draft-ietf-l3vpn-gre-ip-2547-01.txt

["Schliesser, Benson" <[e-mail]>]

Being employed by a service provider that provides (a fair number of)
VR-based VPNs, I'd say it's unfair to suggest "no one really cares
about" them. If you'd like to argue that there are fewer VR-based VPNs
than BGP/MPLS-based VPNs deployed in the world, then I won't oppose.
(although my curiosity would like to see some evidence of this) But even
that doesn't obviate the need for addressing the 'practical problems' of
the VR model. I'd be thankful if Yakov would generalize the draft.

And just because I can't help myself, I have to add (...not intended to
reflect upon the BGP/MPLS versus VR models, nor start any religious wars
therein, just to make the point that your analogy isn't entirely fair):
You can't assume a steakhouse is unworthy of attention simply because
vastly more people eat fast-food hamburgers.

-Benson


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Eric Rosen
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:25 AM
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-l3vpn-gre-ip-2547-01.txt 



Eric> This document has  been around a long time, and none  of the folks

Eric> who believe  in VR-based VPNS  (if there  are even  any still
around) has
Eric> bothered  to contribute  any text.   If one  of those  folks
wants to
Eric> contribute some text, we could take a look at it, otherwise this 
Eric> seems like a non-issue.

Yakov> I'll be glad to contribute the text.

In your new role  as chief advocate for VR-based VPNs?  Or  in your new
role as ensurer  of architectural and  theoretical completeness?
Wouldn't  it be nice if we could keep a  focus on practical problems and
avoid debates about things that no one really cares about?  After all,
as someone once said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in
the debate about the pudding.

:-)