Subject: The need for an 'option d' or similar - response to Mark's 'observation'

From: "Martin Halstead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:56:24 -0000

Mark

In response to your observation, there are other better placed than me to discuss IPv6 and multicast. WRT the need for an additional inter-AS option (an option 'd'), to me it seems that existing inter-AS options were written without the benefit of deployment experience. Now that has occurred in enough volume to come up with a common set of operational issues, doesn't it make sense to refine what is deployed out there? For example with the 'option d' implementation, taking the best attributes of options 'a' and 'b' and combining them so that they deprecate operational issues inherent in deploying one of the original options in isolation?

I assume that for multicast and IPv6, a similar thread could be taken?

Martin Halstead
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: 11 November 2005 17:07
To: [email-masked]
Subject: L3vpn Digest, Vol 19, Issue 4

Send L3vpn mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of L3vpn digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. An observation (Mark Townsley)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:19:21 -0800
From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Subject: An observation
To: [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

During the meeting today, I noticed a common thread:

- InterAS: We have documented 10a, 10b, and 10c, it seems to be well 
understood, but perhaps we want a 10d as well.

- Multicast: We have a documented solution, but perhaps we want to do 
something different with BGP or PWs instead.

- IPv6: We have documented IPv6 L3VPNs, but perhaps we want to translate 
addresses at the edge rather than encapsulate in tunnels.

Are we solving significant problems, or making work for ourselves?

Comments appreciated.

- Mark

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
L3vpn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn

End of L3vpn Digest, Vol 19, Issue 4
************************************