The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] RE: [PWE3] Fwd: New Liaison Statement,"IP protocol number for PW using RFC 4023"
Andy, As you know (as we have discussed this before), by "without MPLS header" I meant "without MPLS tunnel label" but with a PW label. Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:amalis@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 20:51 To: Yaakov Stein Cc: Danny McPherson; pwe3 WG ((((((((E-mail)))))))); mpls@ietf.org Subject: RE: [PWE3] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "IP protocol number for PW using RFC 4023" Yaakov, I agree that protocol number 137 is correct, but to be precise, the PW packet does have an MPLS header with a PW label, it just doesn't have a tunnel label, because that's been replaced by the IP header. I added the MPLS WG on this reply since the liaison was sent to both WGs, and in fact I think the return liaison should be generated by the MPLS WG, since it was the source of RFC 4023. Cheers, Andy ---------- At 8/22/2006 15:30 +0200, Yaakov Stein wrote: > Hi all, > >We have discussed the basic issue in the past. > >Rahul brought it up at IETF58 (draft-raggarwa-pwe3-pw-over-ip) and the >majority there thought the technique obvious enough not to require a WG >draft. > >Mark T has also discussed this >http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0402/pdf/townsley.pdf. > >I believe that we should answer that protocol number 137 is >satisfactory for a PW packet without an MPLS header. > >Y(J)S _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|