Pekka, [clipped...]
> > From your message, I can't tell which of those, or of any number of other > > possible objections, is the basis of your objection. > > > > BTW - all these things were already being worked on in PPVPN. Some were > > even described in the charter. > > Fair question, I probably should have included more text in the first > place :-). > > 1. Virtual Private LAN Service. This is Internet-wise ethernet bridging > over routing protocols such as BGP, IS-IS, etc; further, this has > typically little respect for security implications which are implicit (or > even explicit) in LAN networks. > > So, my main points are: > > - we must not overload routing protocols and such infrastructure (IMHO, > this seems an inevitable path the work would go towards..) > > - we must not create complexity by deploying ethernet bridging all over > the Internet. Our work should be focused on making IP work, not > specifying Ethernet-over-IP (or worse, Ethernet-over-IP as a *service*). The proposed charter talks about VPLS "across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP network". Such a network does not have to be the Internet. Yakov.
