|
Hi Yuanlong Jiang,
Where you said below:
"I also wonder whether
we should define a PW type for IP payload so that everything on PW is
possible"
This is precisely what a key consequence of MPLS-TP is,
ie in the LDP spin of MPLS we had to define PWs (one reason being that LDP
requires that IP traffic units can run native in the DP with MPLS traffic
units), but given we can't have IP in the MPLS-TP DP and we can't have LDP mp2p
merging constructs in MPLS-TP anyway (the latter point is all about resource
management determinism) then the original driver for PWs is gone.....just a
fact. So now everything is a PW and nothing is a PW....that is, we just
have clients (any) of MPLS-TP.
We still have a tricky issue with the S bit that is not
fully understood IMO yet (S bit => sublayering, as opposed to true
client/server layering), which is also related to the important topic of being
able to do MPLSoverMPLS as a proper client/server
relationship.
So what you point out below will be the case in MPLS-TP
anyway (though I'm not sure everyone is comfortable with the acceptance of this
fact yet)
regards, Neil
|