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