-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Adam Vitkovsky wrote: > While we are on the topic what do you folks think about BGP signaled VPLS > please? > While I would prefer BGP in favor of LDP signaling as I believe it saves > control plane overhead (1 BGP session VS n-1 LDP sessions), I have heard a > valid objection as to why to run yet another functionality/feature (not > tested by majority of operators) when the reliable and stable LDP > functionality is enabled already anyways (for p2p PWs and base MPLS). >
eVPN will be based on BGP. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-evpn-04 - -- ========= bep -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlF1bdEACgkQE1XcgMgrtybGSQCgg8B7+XXk3MfUuJlPNSVvOBZF OCoAoPKLIfDDbBeSClwQxyMPQwqj8Gq7 =Lnj8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
