On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
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.
Of course; but I think it is reasonable to assume that in most cases it
is.
Also, remember where the I in IETF comes from. That's what our main focus
should be at.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings