Re: Comments on draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-01.txt

[Thomas Morin <thomas.morin at orange-ftgroup.com>]

Hi Eric, working group,

I already extensively replied to Eric's comments, some of which seem to
me indeed as calling for relevant updates/additions to our draft, but I
want to highlight an answer to one specific comment...

Eric Rosen :
>
> 11. Outsourced RPs
>
>     I  would like  to see  the  draft offer  much stronger  support
>     for  its recommendation to  implement outsourced RPs,  or else to 
>     eliminate that recommendation.
[snip]
> 
>     Outsourced RPs  (i.e., PE  as RP) have  a number of  disadvantages which
>     need to be given more emphasis: [...]
>
>     I presume  that the extra  operational work for  SP and customer  is not
>     going to be justified by the  fact that it simplifies things for some of
>     the SP's vendors.

Everybody having read the draft can see that it actually not only say
that the RP-colocation feature is useful but also that an implementation
should _not_ require using this feature.  So, Eric, your underlying
suggestion that co-authors of mvpn-considerations state that "the
outsourced-RP feature should be implemented" to to simplify things for
some particular vendor(s) is really ridiculous.

If this is the kind of plot you have in mind, the amount of opposition
you have to mvpn-considerations becoming a working group document is in
fact not surprising !  ;)

But I think the working group support to this work shows that not
everybody has such conspiracy theories in mind, and that many people
understand that operators have just a sincere interest in trying to
identify a best candidate for becoming a standard (vs. a set of
"profiles").   If you happen to disagree with this perspective, then it
would be nice to hear you say that it is the main reason for you
opposition, that will spare a few photos and electrons of l3vpn mailing
list traffic !

Thanks,

-Thomas