Pekka,
why?
I can think of some possible reasons, not necessarily exclusive
- this is a bad idea/impossible to do well, so we shouldn't do it
- some other organization is already doing it, so we shouldn't
- we're too stupid to get it right, so we shouldn't do it
- the IETF is too large, so we shouldn't be adding more work
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.
--On onsdag, juni 18, 2003 09:27:49 +0300 Pekka Savola <pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi>
wrote:
Hi,
I do not think this WG should be chartered.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, The IESG wrote:
1. Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)--L2 service that emulates LAN
across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP network, allowing standard
Ethernet devices communicate with each other as if they were
connected to a common LAN segment.
I *definitely* think we should *NOT* be working on this.
2. Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS)--L2 service that provides L2
point-to-point connectivity (e.g. Frame Relay DLCI, ATM VPI/VCI,
point-to-point Ethernet) across an IP and an MPLS-enabled IP
network.
We shouldn't be working on this.
3. IP-only L2 VPNs--L2 service across an IP and an MPLS-enabled
IP network, allowing standard IP devices to communicate with each
other as if they were connected to a common LAN segment or a
point- to-point circuit.
We may have to work on the point-to-point L2 VPN case, but I'd like to
see alternative approaches to this.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through
ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which
is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed.
Decisions on
what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.