The MPLS WG Archive

["Italo Busi" <Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.it>]

Yaakov,

actually G.8110.1 Amendment 1 inserts the following statement at the end of the
Scope clause of G.8110.1:

"
Equipment developed prior to the production of this Recommendation is not
expected to comply with this Recommendation.
" 

Note that the fact that T-MPLS is not intended for deployment inside existing
IP/MPLS networks does not mean that T-MPLS shall not interwork with IP/MPLS.

SDH, OTH and WDM are networks disjoint from IP/MPLS networks but these networks
interoperate (via a client/server relationship).

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 8:07 AM
> To: stbryant@cisco.com
> 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"
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 



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