The MPLS WG Archive

["Sasha Vainshtein" <Sasha@AXERRA.com>]

Yaakov, Stewart and all.

IMHO the only real way to assure disjoint operation of MPLS and T-MPLS 
is to allocate dedicated protocol numbers (EtherType etc.) for T-MPLS.
Such an allocation would not harm T-MPLS in any way.

On the contrary, to the best of my understanding, usage of the same
protocol 
numbers cannot not serve any purpose beyond facilitating MPLS/T-MPLS 
interworking (be it intentional or not).

So I suggest we resurrect our old proposal to SG15 to switch to a
different
set of protocol numbers.

My 2c.

Regards,
                     Sasha
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:07 AM
To: stbryant@cisco.com
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] RE: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and
MPLS WG concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"

Stewart, 

If SG15's position is
  "The assumption we have made is that when deploying T-MPLS for this
purpose 
   it will be deployed on a network that is disjoint from any already
deployed IP/MPLS network."
then they should explicitly state a limitation in the scope section of
the new Recommendation.

I recall several times when as editor I was forced to add such
limitations.

Something like
  "The protocol described in the Recommendation shall not be deployed in
any existing IP/MPLS network,
   nor shall it interwork in any fashion with such a network."

Y(J)S



-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 22:55
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG
concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"

The IETF response to our liaison of
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt
was sent as a word document. To make sure that all members of PWE3 are
able to read it, I have extracted the substantive text as ASCII.

I have major concerns about the assumption of disjoint operation since I
cannot see how the T-MPLS protocol prevents this.

I request WG input on how to respond to this liaison.

- Stewart


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


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