The MPLS WG Archive

["Andrew G. Malis" <Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com>]

Tom,

Thanks for your messages.  There's a key question I would like to ask in reply:

>>>There are pseudo-wires, such as ethernet, where a control word is not 
>>>mandatory.  This would imply that the first nibble (which would be 
>>>identified as the suggested PID) would be that from the ethernet frame.
>>
>>We're going to have to change the PWE3 drafts to require the control 
>>word, and change both the SONET/SDH and some of the ATM encapsulations, 
>>to support a hack.
>
>         Andy,
>
>         Some people believe that the non-use of the control
>word is a hack/micro-optimization that should be removed.

Does "some people" represent PWE3 WG consensus?  To include Stewart's PID 
in the PWE3 architecture draft, there must be PWE3 WG consensus on two points:

1. The PID in the architecture spec is the right thing to do.
2. The control word MUST be required in all PWE3 encapsulations.

Also, there must be MPLS WG consensus on:

1. There should be an MPLS protocol ID.
2. Stewart's PID is the PWE3 control word in the right way to do it.

Cheers,
Andy