The MPLS WG Archive

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

To summarize the answers I got to this same question when I asked it last month:
the problem statement will be enhanced to cover packet and non-packet traffic

Are we due a revision of the problem statement following the discussions from the last
month?

I also asked that the ADs and CCAMP be consulted on this work. It is unclear to me that
- MPLS should work on something that is not packet oriented
- we should risk a solution in MPLS that does not fit GMPLS
- we should risk inventing new techniques in MPLS when GMPLS techniques
  may already exist.

Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>
To: <dcheng@cisco.com>
Cc: "'Lou Berger'" <lberger@movaz.com>; <mpls@UU.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: Invitation to discuss: "P2MP problem statement" - decision


> Lou and Dean,
>
> I guess this is what should be classified as "good question".
> What Dean says about the possibility to use the P2MP TE LSPs
> both in packet based and non-packet based networks is true.
> When it comes to the scope of what the MPLS working group
> will define it could be another matter, extending this to
> include specifications that are applicable for non-packet
> based networks would require that we explicitly says so in
> the wg charter and that it is OKed by the ADs.
>
> Having said this it is my opinion that we should do the work
> only once and in the mpls wg.
>
> /Loa
>
> Dean Cheng (dcheng) wrote:
>
> > Lou,
> >
> >    Yes it does. In fact, the P2MP TE LSPs can be used in
> >    both packet based (MPLS) or non-packet based (GMPLS)
> >    networks, as originally intended.
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf Of Lou
> > Berger
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:22 PM
> > To: Loa Andersson
> > Cc: mpls@UU.NET
> > Subject: Re: Invitation to discuss: "P2MP problem statement" - decision
> >
> >
> > Loa,
> >          Just want to clarify a point:  Do P2MP TE LSPs include all
> > GMPLS
> > switching types or just PSC?  I think inclusion of all types is
> > important/goodness.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lou
> >
> > At 01:04 PM 9/9/2003, Loa Andersson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>WG,
> >>
> >>I have the working group consensus to ask the ADs to
> >>add the p-2-mp milestones to our charter. In fact we
> >>have only seen support :).
> >>
> >>Alex,
> >>
> >>could you start the process to add the following milestone
> >>the the mpls wg charter.
> >>
> >>Milestones
> >>
> >>- produce a requirement specification that defines the scope,
> >>  requirements, and issues to resolve for how to setup a P2MP TE LSPs
> >>  by Minneapolis 2003 meeting.
> >>
> >>- produce a small number of solution draft(s) which specify protocol
> >>  extensions, enhancements and mechanisms for P2MP TE LSPs by spring
> >>  2004 IETF meeting.
> >>
> >>
> >>/Loa
> >>
> >>--
> >>Loa Andersson
> >>
> >>Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
> >>Email           loa@pi.se
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> Loa Andersson
>
> Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
> Email           loa@pi.se
>
>
>