[36712] in North American Network Operators' Group
"Cisco MPLS-based VPNs" & BGP Stability
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danny McPherson)
Tue Apr 17 13:31:12 2001
Message-Id: <200104171728.LAA09565@tcb.net>
To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Reply-To: danny@tcb.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:28:06 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I thought this might be of interest to folks here, it looks
strikingly similar to draft-behringer-mpls-security-00.txt,
which has uni-directionally discussed on the IETF's PPVPN
mailing list a while back.
I think a more pragmatic approach could have actually been
useful, however, this would likely require a non-commissioned
perspective. IMO, things like "Hiding the Service Provider
Core Network" aren't very practical.
I'd also like to get feedback on how folks see things like
MPLS/BGP VPNs impacting Internet route table stability and
convergence. After all, simply because it's not necessarily
envisioned (by some) to be deployed inter-domain, it does
make heavy use of BGP, which clearly impacts unicast stuff as
well.
-danny
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:08:01 -0400
To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
From: Christopher Lewis <chrlewis@cisco.com>
Subject: Security on MPLS VPNs
The Mier group released a report that showed MPLS VPNs offer the same level
of security that frame relay and ATM networks do. That report is available at
http://www.mier.com/reports/cisco/MPLS-VPNs.pdf
- -------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
------- End of Forwarded Message
