The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2003-May> msg00147



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

Re: vpls vs L2 BGP vpn

  • From: "M. ELK" <elkou141061@hotmail.com>
  • Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:27:29 +0000
  • Resent-Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 09:25:46 -0400
  • To: shub_c@yahoo.com, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2003 12:27:30.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[D80AE980:01C321EF]
  • X-Originating-Email: [elkou141061@hotmail.com]
  • X-Originating-IP: [57.250.229.136]


As far as i understand , U are proposing to use LDP instead of BGP for L3 
VPN al a RFC 2547 .
If yes :
In such case we need to :
- Define RR functionality for LDP to reduce the number of "targeted" LDP 
meshing between PE's .
- Extend LDP to carry "attributes" so we could have some policy on the PE 
reg what route to
import  .

since BGP is ready to do the job why start from square 1 again .

Brgds



>From: shubi-doo-ahh <shub_c@yahoo.com>
>To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
>Subject: [MPLS-OPS]: vpls vs L2 BGP vpn
>Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Not sure this is the right mailing list? I like to get some feedback
>about VPLS and L2 BGP VPN. My knowledge is LDP-VPN can provide the same
>scalability as mentioned in RFC2547. The intermediate LSR's (P routers)
>need not maintain the VPN-Lables and routes.  This can be achieved by
>maintaining LDP sessions bewteen the PE LSR's. We can avoid using BGP
>for MPLS-VPNs
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml