Monday, August 3, 2020

VPLS.US 05/05/2011 Ethernet VPN to RFC 4762

http://vpls.us/?p=658 Thu, 05 May 2011 01:19:25 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=658

I could see a couple different ways of addressing this issue:


  1. Through the use of NNIs. Which by the way is something I’m seeing as missing from the Ethernet VPN draft. The ability to cross different AS realms. Having a link between two PEs become the path between a BGP signaled Ethernet VPN and a LDP Signaled VPLS domain.

  2. Through the use of something like Juniper’s option E… Having a PE that can speak both Ethernet VPN and LDP VPLS and having it keep two LARGE forwarding tables that allows it to do the forwarding between the different domains.

  3. What else???

This is going to have to be addressed, or they risk another fraction as we saw between 4761 and 4762 or perhaps that’s what they want?
]]>