The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Apr> msg00025



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

[mpls] New Liaison Statement, "T-MPLS Consented Recommendations"

  • From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:25:19 -0400
  • Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, tnadeau@cisco.com
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,112,1144036800"; d="scan'208"; a="86198480:sNHT29536724"
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2006 15:25:20.0435 (UTC)FILETIME=[24FA5030:01C65D7C]

Neil -

> (i)	I agree with you that some clarity is required on 
> specific reserved label ranges and their uses.  However, I'd 
> say it's bigger than just the label ranges and should also 
> include how all the header fields (ie S, EXP, TTL) are to be 

Could you enlighten us as to what you are considering here.  Prima
facia, it would appear that you are diverting further from MPLS than the
liaised material would indicate....

> used in T-MPLS (I noted you don't think this 'T-MPLS' name is 
> good, but I'll stick with it here).  Why?  Well, folks need 
> to consider the various client/server relationships that 
> could exist between the various spins of MPLS as-is and 
> T-MPLS....and especially misconnectivity between them....so 
> how is this going to be handled?

We handle such relationships for ATM, SONET, Ethernet without calling
any of those MPLS.  I see no argument here for including MPLS in the
name of your transport technology.

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls