vpls.us

Dang I missed it. I had hoped to make it to the IETF 77.

The workgroup I really wanted to attend was L2VPN. That’s where
all the real action happens

IETF 77: Layer 2 Virtual Private Network WG (l2vpn) Agenda

FRIDAY, March 26, 2010, 1300-1515
=================================

These are the items I had interest in:

5) MAC Flush Loop Detection in VPLS
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pkwok-l2vpn-vpls-macflush-ld-01
Pranjal Dutta (pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com)
5 mins  Read more... (363 words, estimated 1:27 mins reading time)

I’m going to start blogging on Global Crossing’s web site. I’ll be leaving this web site
up for the forseable future. Perhaps change it to another type of a blog? Dunno,
probably won’t have time.

Anyway, here is my new home…..

http://blogs.globalcrossing.com/?q=category/blog-topic/ethernet-great-enabler

or directly to only my posts

http://blogs.globalcrossing.com/?q=blogs/timcopley

As always, feel free to comment.

Global Crossing North America descended on Phoenix, AZ this week for a Sales Engineering Forum. Speakers included partners in Cisco, Juniper, and our own Development Engineering Team. Dave Cooper, Mike Benjamin and myself spoke over the course of Monday and Tuesday. I of course covered VPLS. My official program title was

EtherSphere Network Platform and Technology Review – Tim Copley, Principal Engineer  Read more... (262 words, estimated 1:03 mins reading time)

> regarding E-NNI implementations for Global VPLS from Verizon and for CENX
> (Nan’s Ethernet Exchange company).
>
> This is interesting because MEF E-NNI spec is dodging the more complicated
> issues like defining a Class of Service alignment and Service OAM. While
> providers are going forward with their own home grown E-NNI definition,
> which I assume involve CoS alignment and Service OAM.
>
> From your experience dealing with off-network operators (or providing
> service as the off-network operator), are E-NNI implementation similar from
> one operator to another, or are the implementation vastly different between
> the operators you’ve worked with? Or, perhaps this isn’t a problem for you
> because the off-network interconnects are not Ethernet base? Ben Hsu  Read more... (1501 words, estimated 6:00 mins reading time)

The L2VPN working group in the IETF just approved the release of Multihoming VPLS draft HERE I voted in favor of allowing this draft to continue as a working group draft. Its relatively short 17 pages and now covers both BGP and LDP versions of VPLS, when it was originally released or when the working group originally pursued this it was just based upon BGP. Now I guess they release that in order to address the whole market they need to address both BGP and LDP versions of VPLS. They released them and SPs use both, so both should be addressed.  Read more... (673 words, estimated 2:42 mins reading time)