Acee, I believe the limited scope you refer to matches the charter or the WG.
Lou -----Original Message----- From: Acee Lindem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:24:22 To:Lou Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc:Igor Bryskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [L1vpn] Issues and concerns about Basic Mode OSPF Discovery Lou Berger wrote: > At 09:00 PM 5/11/2006, Acee Lindem wrote: > >>> 3. Would you agree that there could be networks (specifically, L1 >>> networks) >>> and applications that do not use BGP at all and have no plans to use >>> it in >>> foreseeable future which yet could benefit from L1VPN services? >>> Nobody said >>> after all that BGP is a mandatory part of any control plane in any >>> network >>> layer >>> >> I agree that there are optical or other L1 networks that have their >> own control >> plane. I just don't see why one would want to offer VPNs on top of these >> without an intervening L3 network. >> >> Thanks, >> Acee > > > Acee, > I think we still have a "context" issue. In this contect the > "VPN" is itself a Layer 1 service, e.g., a SONET interface or a > lambda. There are no packet services in these networks, only an IP > control plane controlling circuits. Lou, Understood - but are saying that there is no requirement to ever offer these L1VPN services in parallel with over L2/L3 services over a shared provider network? If you can truly limit the applicable to an environment where the control plane only has the purpose of L1VPNs then I wouldn't be that concerned (although I'd ask that the IANA opaque LSA ID allocation clearly state this - this WG chooses to go forward with this approach). Thanks, Acee > > Lou
_______________________________________________ L1vpn mailing list L1vpn@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
