On 21/04/2012 02:35, Xuxiaohu wrote:
Hi Marc,
I agree that L3 over L3 should also be considered by NVo3 besides of
the L2 over L3.
However, I think the sentence you proposed "a routed and/or bridged
Ethernet service" is still not clear enough and hence it may be
interpreted mistakenly as follows: the routed Ethernet service means a
L2VPN service with control-plane based MAC learning capabilities such
as EVPN or something like that (By the way, I remembered one prior
name of the EVPN is "routed VPLS" or "R-VPLS" in short), while the
bridged Ethernet service means a L2VPN service with data-plane based
MAC learning capabilities, such as existing BGP or LDP based VPLS.
There are two problems with this
Does it mean ("routed Ethernet service" || "bridged Ethernet service")
or does it mean ("routed service" || "bridged Ethernet service")?
There are so many flavours of Ethenet switching and transmission that we
need to be very careful.
If we say routing meaning IP routing then we end up with issues of
whether MPLS is in or out.
The original text "The WG will determine whether an IP, and/or an
emulated Ethernet service is needed" avoids this minefield.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
