The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Oct> msg00527



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

VPN solution - White flag ?

  • From: Ben Black <ben@layer8.net>
  • Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:10:59 -0700
  • Cc: Jim Guichard <jguichar@cisco.com>, Paul Doolan <pdoolan@ennovatenetworks.com>, Barry Hass <BHass@nexabit.com>, erosen@cisco.com, yakov@cisco.com, mpls@UU.NET, diego@estos.upc.es
  • User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i

I am not sure I understand your question.  Are we not debating
the merits of draft-rosen-rfc2547bis-02.txt, a layer 3 approach?


Ben

On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 10:09:19AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Then perhaps this is not the solution for you.  However, the fact
> > that it is not applicable to your particular application does not
> > make it worthless (this is to be differentiated from drafts
> > documenting architectures that are applicable to no applications).
> > 
> > Is it inappropriate, in general, for SPs who need to maintain full
> > Internet tables in their PEs?  Quite likely.
> > 
> > Is it inappropriate, in general, for SPs who have nothing but VPN
> > customers, each of whom has very few prefixes?  Probably not.
> > 
> > I don't believe anyone has challenged either MOs or your ability to
> > engineer ISP networks, but perhaps viewing everything through your
> > ISP goggles is not the most effective way to judge the utility of
> > all drafts.
> 
> so we agree it is not for isps.  cool.
> 
> so, if an enterprise wanting to deploy it is not an isp, then they'll
> need their own layer 1 or2 connectivity between all endpoints.  so then
> what is the advantage to them of this clever (a pejorative) approach to
> old-style layer 2 vpns?
> 
> randy
>