The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] RE: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"
Neil, Yes, I quite agree that there can be client-server relationships (either way). What I want is a clear statement that there can be no peer relationship. Sasha's comment on separate Ethertypes is, of course, a good solution, but we need to state the requirement first and then give this as one possible solution. BTW, we have requested this several times already. BTW -----Original Message----- From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 09:27 To: Yaakov Stein Cc: stbryant@cisco.com Subject: RE: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1" Hi Yaakov, Good point...a key corollary of which IMO is that T-MPLS cannot be claimed to be a sub-set of MPLS.....so one could call T-MPLS anything one likes now....indeed, perhaps IETF should request this of ITU to avoid any confusion? However, whilst I accept there should be no attempt at interworking MPLS and T-MPLS as though they were peers (essentially the horizontal partitioning of what looks like a single layer network...so I agree this needs clearly stating) there ought to be some clarification of what client/server relationships are intended (if any?) to exist between MPLS and T-MPLS (both ways, ie MPLSoT-MPLS and T-MPLSoMPLS). regards, Neil _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls |
|