Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <email@example.com>, RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, l2vpn mailing list <email@example.com>, l2vpn chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling' to Proposed Standard The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling ' <draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Mark Townsley and Jari Arkko. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-09.txt
Technical Summary This document describes the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), also known as Transparent LAN Service and Virtual Private Switched Network service. The service offers a Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (VPN); however, in the case ofVPLS, the customers in the VPN are connected by a multipoint network, in contrast to traditional Layer 2 VPNs, which are point-to-point in nature. Thisdocument describes the functions required to offer VPLS, a mechanism for signaling a VPLS using BGP, and rules for forwarding VPLS frames across a packet switched network. Working Group Summary The VPLS solutions have been one of great controversies within the VPN workinggroups ever since the PPVPN days. There have been two sets of solutionsand much debate on the relative merits of these solutions. An agreement was reached that it is not really the choice of signaling protocol that is the major difference between the LDP and BGP based solutions, but the kind of environment they are targeted at. VPLS-LDP is aimed at a market of networks built on relatively small and functionally simple switches, while VPLS-BGP is primarily suited for use by high-end routers. There is a comparatively good understanding for this agreement in the working group. Within the working group there is no one that wants to go over that debate again. VPLS-BGP has been through a number of reviews, including reviews in the L2VPN working group and the IDR WG. We know that Alex has requested that it shall be reviewed in routing directorate. Protocol Quality The protocol is implemented and deployed. There is one vendor who is known tohave implemented, and widely deployed, the VPLS-BGP spec. There is believed to be two other implementations, but that hasn't been confirmed. The number of deployments is larger, but I don't have figures. We have not had any reviewer stand up and saying there is any need for major re-work. This is most likely attributable to the fact that this specification is rather limited in scope, specifically: signaling and discovery of VPLS instances. The specification has been reviewed by Alex Zinin, the IDR WG, and Mark Townsley. IESG Note The L2VPN Working Group produced two separate documents, [RFC-draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-ldp] and [RFC-draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp], that ultimately perform similar functions in different manners. Be aware that each method is commonly referred to as "VPLS" even though they are distinct and incompatible with one another.