VPLS and the EVP-LAN service

[Michelot]

Bonjour Huub and Bert,

I discovered the new recommandation G.8011.3 "Ethernet virtual private
LAN service".

And I'm a little bit surprised to don't see any reference to VPLS,
described in RFC 4026. Nor any reference to any RFC.

Although, the word VPLS is well noted in G.8010.1, in the appendice I.

What is pleased your opinion about that fact ?

It seems that "Ethernet virtual private LAN service" from ITU-T is
different from "Virtual private LAN service" from IETF.

Best regards,
Michelot

[Huub van Helvoort]

Bonsoir Michelot,

You wrote:

> I discovered the new recommandation G.8011.3 "Ethernet virtual private
> LAN service".
>
> And I'm a little bit surprised to don't see any reference to VPLS,
> described in RFC 4026. Nor any reference to any RFC.

This is a recommendation for Ethernet, VPLS and RFCs
would refer to IEEE standards too, so there was no need
to refer to them.

> Although, the word VPLS is well noted in G.8010.1, in the appendice I.

Appendix is not normative and is just an example.

> What is pleased your opinion about that fact ?

As a rapporteur responsible for this recommendation, I think
this is the right approach.

> It seems that "Ethernet virtual private LAN service" from ITU-T is
> different from "Virtual private LAN service" from IETF.

No, not really.

Cheers, Huub.

--
reply to hhelvooort with 2 'o's
================================================================
http://www.van-helvoort.eu/
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...

[Michelot]

Bonsoir Huub,

Thanks very much for all your replies.

Always in G.8011.3 in the section 9.1.5 VLAN mapping, we can read:

"At the multiplexed NNI there is a mapping of service provider VLAN ID
to at most one EVC"

Is this "service provider VLAN ID" same than S-VLAN or different. In
the recommendation (prepublished), we see the term CE-VLAN but not the
terme S-VLAN.

I believe to understand that VPLS is PW generally on a MPLS tunnel,
while EVP-LAN is S-VLAN (if you agree my 9.1.5 interpretation) on a
server layer (e.g. MPLS).

Thanks for this talking,
best regards,
Michelot

[Huub van Helvoort]

Bonjour Michelot,

You wrote:

> Thanks very much for all your replies.

^_^

> Always in G.8011.3 in the section 9.1.5 VLAN mapping, we can read:
>
> "At the multiplexed NNI there is a mapping of service provider VLAN ID
> to at most one EVC"
>
> Is this "service provider VLAN ID" same than S-VLAN or different. In
> the recommendation (prepublished), we see the term CE-VLAN but not the
> terme S-VLAN.

That is the difference in dialects between ITU-T and IEEE.

> I believe to understand that VPLS is PW generally on a MPLS tunnel,
> while EVP-LAN is S-VLAN (if you agree my 9.1.5 interpretation) on a
> server layer (e.g. MPLS).

We are changing the use of layering slightly.
We prefer now to talk about "roles" in a domain of a
network. Where a signal can play the "path role" in
one domain, and the "channel role" in the adjacent
domain, etc.
Taking this into acount, your believe is correct.

[Michelot]

Bonsoir Huub,

> We are changing the use of layering slightly.
> We prefer now to talk about "roles" in a domain of a
> network. Where a signal can play the "path role" in
> one domain, and the "channel role" in the adjacent
> domain, etc.
> Taking this into acount, your believe is correct.

Thanks Huub for this information.

I just discovered on the web the draft v1.7.2 of G.8110.1 that
describes that.

"As applied to MPLS-TP domains, the layer instances of a MPLS-TP
hierarchy may be described in terms of their role in the hierarchy.
These roles are channel, path, and section..."

Thanks to you I can prepare me to this new concept which is the role.

Best regards,
Michelot