Yakov:
We don't have 14 values, we are talking inferring payload on
the basis of defacto IETF protocol payloads (IPv4 and IPv6). PWE3 and MPLS
do not own IPv4/v6 or any subsequent network layer protocols the IETF may
choose to develop.
I agree with Andy that if a PID is required, lets do it
properly.
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:08 AM
> To: W. Mark Townsley; Andrew G. Malis
> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org; mpls@uu.net
>
Subject: RE: [PWE3] MPLS PID
>
>
> > One possibility for an
extended PID that comes to mind is
> >
defining one of the remaining 14 values within the first
> nibble as "extended PID"
> > and
follow it with whatever PID definition you like.
>
> Another, which I proposed in
draft-stein-pwe3-controlword-00.txt,
> is to use
the 4 bits to disambiguate the relevant possibilities.
>
> Since an atm-encap implementation
will probably not
> understand ethernet-encap,
the non 4/6 values could be used
> for submodes
(e.g. 1:1, N:1, PDU, SDU). Similarly, the TDM
>
sub-identifier could differentiate between raw, AAL1, AAL2,
etc.
>
>
Alternatively, we could go for a "sanity check"
>
PWE identifier. We have 14 values available
> and
so far have only defined a few PW types
> (ATM,
FR, SONET, TDM, ethernet).
>
> Y(J)S
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>