Re: WG review: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (l2vpn)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Paul,

> >Alternatively, we can own up that it is OUR problem, i.e., the IETF, and if 
> >we want a solution, we will create one here.
> 
> If we decide that "the problem" is one in our realm, I fully agree. 
> But transporting layer 2 stuff over IP is not a problem that affects 
> the Internet. It is a problem for the service providers marketing 
> departments. The past three yeas have proven that service providers 
> can satisfy their customers needs with L3VPNs, with 
> somewhat-interoperable L2VPNs, with non-interoperable L2VPNs, and 
> with just plain layer 2 circuits. 

I certainly agree with you that there are enough examples that
clearly show that service providers can satisfy their customers
needs with *multi-vendor* *interoperable* implementations based on
the *open* specs, where the spec is an Internet Draft, rather than
an IETF standard. In other words, an Internet Draft + working code
is both necessary *and* sufficient.

Yakov.


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]