Subject: VLAN Aware VPLS Services

From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 14:46:34 +0000

Hi L2VPNers,

at the last IETF Sami presented the following draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cai-l2vpn-vpls-vlan-aware-bundling-00

We'd like to take this opportunity to initiate some on-list discussion on the draft.  Specifically at IETF Wim called out doubts as to the need for the draft - given that PBB VPLS can address the same problem space.  We'd like to hear whether others take the same view as Wim, or whether consensus is that a solution that doesn't require MACinMAC overhead is worthwhile.  We'd also be interested in hearing other comments/opinions on the draft from members of the WG.

Nabil & Giles

---

From: "Rogers, Josh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:53:35 -0500

As an SP, I have yet to see a use case/need for this (although I see in
the draft it calls out a data center application).  If we had a need for
this, we'd likely consider PBB-VPLS, but to date we haven't seen any need
to isolate C-VLAN's (sometimes there may be a need for 2-3 S-VLAN's for
isolation, but no more than that, so we would just provision 2-3 VPLS
instances in that scenario)

The multicast implications are interesting, but I'm still hoping E-VPN
will be the long term solution for many of these scenarios.

-Josh

On 2/8/13 8:46 AM, "Giles Heron" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>We'd like to take this opportunity to initiate some on-list discussion on
>the draft.  Specifically at IETF Wim called out doubts as to the need for
>the draft - given that PBB VPLS can address the same problem space.  We'd
>like to hear whether others take the same view as Wim, or whether
>consensus is that a solution that doesn't require MACinMAC overhead is
>worthwhile.  We'd also be interested in hearing other comments/opinions
>on the draft from members of the WG.
>
>Nabil & Giles

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: Olen Stokes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:31:23 -0800

I think that the draft is straightforward and worthwhile.  We have had inquiries about this type of capability from our customers.

Cheers,
Olen

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rogers, Josh
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:54 AM
To: Giles Heron; [email-masked]
Cc: Reshad Rahman
Subject: Re: VLAN Aware VPLS Services

As an SP, I have yet to see a use case/need for this (although I see in the draft it calls out a data center application).  If we had a need for this, we'd likely consider PBB-VPLS, but to date we haven't seen any need to isolate C-VLAN's (sometimes there may be a need for 2-3 S-VLAN's for isolation, but no more than that, so we would just provision 2-3 VPLS instances in that scenario)

The multicast implications are interesting, but I'm still hoping E-VPN will be the long term solution for many of these scenarios.

-Josh

On 2/8/13 8:46 AM, "Giles Heron" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>We'd like to take this opportunity to initiate some on-list discussion 
>on the draft.  Specifically at IETF Wim called out doubts as to the 
>need for the draft - given that PBB VPLS can address the same problem 
>space.  We'd like to hear whether others take the same view as Wim, or 
>whether consensus is that a solution that doesn't require MACinMAC 
>overhead is worthwhile.  We'd also be interested in hearing other 
>comments/opinions on the draft from members of the WG.
>
>Nabil & Giles