The MPLS WG Archive

[Phil Bedard <bedard.phil@gmail.com>]

Excuse me if this has already been covered, I've just read some of  
the current messages and to me it seems the definition of  
"interworking" needs to be better defined in these discussions.   To  
me interworking is a translation function on the same data plane, not  
one framing technology encapsulating another.   The connection- 
oriented specifications of T-MPLS seem to not allow its frames to be  
translated and carried on an IP/MPLS network without special  
treatment, unless I'm mistaken.   So there really isn't  
"interworking".    The fact they use the same forwarding plane,  
packet format, and codepoints seems to confuse things.   If they are  
truly distinct protocols that serve different purposes, as the T-MPLS  
advocates seem to say, then clear separation needs to be made between  
the two.

Phil


On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Sasha Vainshtein wrot

>
> [Sasha] I am completely confused now. Are MPLS and T-MPLS supposed to
> interwork, or not?
> Please note also that the current designs for, say P2MP (multicast)  
> LSPs
> use (to some extent) mapping of the protocol numbers to label spaces.
> Hence using a separate protocol number for T-MPLS would be in line  
> with
> the common trend.
>




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