The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Mar> msg00383



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[PWE3] MPLS PID

  • From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
  • Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:10:46 +0100 (BST)
  • cc: jeremy.de_clercq@alcatel.be, David Allan <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>, "'Scott W Brim'" <sbrim@cisco.com>, "" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "" <mpls@UU.NET>
  • Organization: speaking for none
  • X-no-archive: yes
  • X-Scanner: exiscan *18zlwv-0000CB-00*1W50cWxTJ/o* (SECM, UniS)
  • X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
  • X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-131.4 required=5.5tests=AWL,BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE,USER_IN_WHITELISTautolearn=ham version=2.50
  • X-url: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/
  • X-X-Sender: eep1lw@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Eric Rosen wrote:

> 1. The  only  reason for  a  PID  field in  MPLS  and/or  PWE3  is to  allow
>    intermediate routers to determine whether a particular MPLS payload is an
>    IP packet or not.

which is a layer violation, and shouldn't be done.

>    There are a number  of reasons why this is useful, and  no one has argued
>    that this is not useful.

not appropriate, more like.

if you're going to sniff for an IP packet (so you can sniff TCP/UDP or
higher) you might want to ask why you even have any form of mpls
label stack in there in the first place.

if you're not separating out your ip flows via explicit mpls label,
why not?

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@ee.surrey.ac.uk>