> IMO L3VPN no longer has a critical mass of active participants that
> help review, reach consensus and process documents.
Just looking at number of responses along to this thread seems like a
sufficient prove that there are folks interested in this area and in
As mentioned earlier there are also new incoming proposals which either
extend existing L3VPN draft-marques-l3vpn-end-system or attempt to solve
L3VPN without locking customers to the providers
draft-ko-vaas-problem-statement. Both fit very nicely to overall L3VPN
WG objective. However indeed they may not fit to BGP_ONLY_L3VPN WG.