The MPLS WG Archive

[David Charlap <david.charlap@marconi.com>]

Giles Heron wrote:
> 
> I'd hope that there is no intention to specify anything other than IPv4
> or v6 running directly over MPLS.

You're confusing the specification with current implementations.  This 
is a very very dangerous assumption to make.

RSVP-TE explicitly defines the L3PID field of the LABEL_REQUEST object 
so that many layer-3 protocols may be run through LSPs.  The Martini 
draft defines a mechanism for running all kinds of different layers 
through LSPs.  There are also some proprietary mechanisms for running 
layer-2 traffic through LSPs.

> MPLS is, after all, not a layer in
> its own right (but let's not have that debate again!)

Whether you want to call it a layer or not is irrelevant.

The fact is that MPLS is specified to support non-IP traffic on the data 
plane, and there are implementations that are supporting this.  If your 
implementation's design breaks non-IP traffic flows, then your 
implementation's design is broken.

-- David