Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ppvpn-l2-framework-01.txt

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 09:18:55 +0200

Sharam,

see in line

Shahram Davari wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 1) Why only 2 types of L2VPN (VPWS & VPLS) are covered in the frame work?
>    For example you could think of a L2VPN connecting a number of ATM/FR
>    networks, in which the provider network acts as a virtual switch,
>    requiring ATM/FR switching at PEs (i.e., virtual private ATM/FR service).
>    Isn't it more appropriate to define a more generic virtual private L2
>    service rather than a VPLS only for LAN?

I guess that there are more than one answer to this

a. from my point of view I do not have an interest in atm or fr services

b. from an ietf perspective I thought that this was the domain of pwe3

c. if you are suggsting that we should specify virtual privae atm
switches taking atm forwarding decisions as well as particitating in atm
dignaling, this is outside the current scope of ppvnp

> 
> 2) The framework talks about QoS and resiliency in the context of SLA, but does
>    not talk about requirements for decoupling QoS and decoupling resiliency between
>    L2VPNs. Why is that?

agree on that there are possible improvements on these sections in the
draft, but also this is maybe something that would require a framework
of its own?

/Loa

> Thanks,
> -Shahram

-- 
     Loa Andersson
     Chief Architect,
     Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
     Utfors AB
     Råsundavägen 12
     Box 525, 169 29 Solna
     Office          +46 8 5270 2000
     Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
     Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
     Email           [email-masked]
     WWW             www.utfors.se

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 16:39:12 -0400

Shahram> Why only  2 types of L2VPN (VPWS  & VPLS) are covered  in the frame
Shahram> work?  For example  you could think of a  L2VPN connecting a number
Shahram> of ATM/FR networks, in which the provider network acts as a virtual
Shahram> switch, requiring  ATM/FR switching  at PEs (i.e.,  virtual private
Shahram> ATM/FR  service).   Isn't it  more  appropriate  to  define a  more
Shahram> generic virtual private L2 service rather than a VPLS only for LAN? 

In the generic Framework, a "Forwarder" attaches to multiple Pseudowires and
multiple  Attachment Circuits,  and  the Forwarder  determines  how to  move
frames among them, possibly by looking at L2-specific addressing information
and comparing it to the contents of an L2-specific forwarding database.  

More detail  is provided only  for VPWS and  VPLS because this  reflects the
interests of the WG, as evidenced by its set of internet drafts.