H-VPLS application with different types of VPLS

Question

so ive been digging around VPLS for a while and i have come across a term H-VPLS.

My knowledge is: VPLS can be signalled using LDP (manual or autodiscovery) or BGP (autodiscovery).

H-VPLS: Hierarchical connectivity architecture reduces signaling and replication overhead, allowing H-VPLS be deployed in high scale service provider scenarios.

I have successfully tested manual LDP-based VPLS and adding H-VPLS architecture to the existing network.

But my question is:

Is H-VPLS applicable for every type of VPLS network? (any other than LDP-based VPLS as in RFC 4762)

By other i mean LDP-based VPLS with BGP A-D and BGP-based VPLS

I dont see any reason why it shouldnt be, but i havent found any resource to confirm this.

Thank you!

---

EDIT

After some more digging i have stumbled upon a video which showed this objective:

I take it as a positive answer to my question.

Answer 1

@Radovan. Refernece to your question "Is H-VPLS applicable for every type of VPLS network? (any other than LDP-based VPLS as in RFC 4762)" , I think H-VPLS was a fix to lessen extensive LDP peering that might result when attempting to configure VPLS using LDP for large number of PEs. The main motivation was to decrease LDP peerings required for VPLS LDP by relaxing some VPLS split horizon rules.

However , when VPLS using both LDP and BGP is deployed with BGP doing the auto-discovery (determine which PEs are involved in a VPLS instance) and LPD does the signalling work (PW label assignment) , then there should be no need for H-VPLS in this scenario as the main job of H-VPLS (to reduce configuration overhead along with reducing full mesh LDP peering on PEs) has been done by BGP by eliminating those PEs that are not a part of a VPLS instance effectively reducing full mesh peering.

So H-VPLS is only applicable where both discovery (manual) and signaling are done by solely LDP ony! Other than that there is no need for H-VPLS.