Subject: [L1vpn] Draft meeting report

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:02:11 -0000

Hi,

You can see the draft meeting report at
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/minutes/l1vpn.html

In a break with tradition I have followed the rules which are to write a
report to capture the agreements and open issues rather than a verbatim
record.

Let me know what you think of this approach.

Thanks,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
L1vpn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:36:19 +0100

all -

here below a first suggestion on optional C/P "port identifiers"

customer port switching capability (8 bits)
provider port switching capability (8 bits)

encoding (8 bits)

bandwidth granularity: min/max LSP bandwidth (2 x 32 bits)

once ok will draft the corr. text

comments ?

thanks,
- dimitri;

Adrian Farrel wrote:

> .

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:45:25 +0100

adrian, all

when looking back at the charter presented during the L1VPN meeting, one 
came to the case where the TDM/LSC LSP starts at the C rather at the CEs 
meaning that CEs are not restricted to LSRs but could any intermediate 
node that can switch TDM/LSC

does it mean we have now a better view on the carrier's carrier demand ?

just curious ... opinions ?

thanks,
- dimitri.