Thank you for your reply.
rather than L2TP PW type for IP. So I believe it is also feasible for
MPLS-TP.
layer such as PW functions now is indispensable.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:16
AM
Subject: RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446
"IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
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
Hi, all:
I came accross an error in RFC
4446 "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire
Edge to Edge Emulation
(PWE3)".
In Sec 3.2, it
says:
" 0x000B IP Layer2
Transport
[RFC3032]"
I wonder how about the status
of this expired WG draft, will any more work
continue on this document or
just expired as it is?
I also wonder whether we should define
a PW type for IP payload so that
everything on PW is
possible.
Any comments?
Thanks,
Yuanlong Jiang