VPLS Interoperability with Provider Backbone Bridges
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pbb-interop-00
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(l2vpn WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ali Sajassi , San Jose , Florin Balus | ||
| Last updated | 2010-01-15 (Latest revision 2009-10-20) | ||
| Replaces | draft-sajassi-l2vpn-vpls-pbb-interop | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The scalability of H-VPLS with Ethernet access network can be improved by incorporating Provider Backbone Bridge functionality in VPLS access. Provider Backbone Bridging has been standardized as IEEE 802.1ah-2008, and aims to improve the scalability of MAC addresses and service instances in Provider Ethernet networks. This document describes different interoperability scenarios where Provider Backbone Bridge functionality is used in H-VPLS with Ethernet or MPLS access network to attain better scalability in terms of number of customer MAC addresses and number of service instances. The document also describes the scenarios and the mechanisms for incorporating Provider Backbone Bridge functionality within H-VPLS with existing Ethernet access and interoperability among them. Furthermore, the document discusses the migration mechanisms and scenarios by which Provider Backbone Bridge functionality can be incorporated into H-VPLS with existing MPLS access. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Authors
Ali Sajassi
San Jose
Florin Balus
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)