Re: [mpls] Question about 0x8848 Ethertype

To: "Shahram Davari" <davari at broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Question about 0x8848 Ethertype
From: Eric Rosen <erosen at cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:07:34 -0400
Authentication-results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Cc: "'mpls at ietf.org'" <mpls at ietf.org>
Delivered-to: mpls at core3.amsl.com
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:08:38 -0700. <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD681576839A8 at SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply-to: erosen at cisco.com

> Why didn't the standard let unicast Ethernet carrying upstream-assigned
> label also use 0x8848?

Unicast was considered to be out of scope of RFCs 5331/5332.

References:
- Re: [mpls] Question about 0x8848 Ethertype
  - From: Shahram Davari

Prev by Date: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req (MPLS TP Network Management Requirements) to Proposed Standard
Next by Date: [mpls] Protocol Action: 'An Inband Data Communication Network For the MPLS Transport Profile' to Proposed Standard
Previous by thread: Re: [mpls] Question about 0x8848 Ethertype
Next by thread: Re: [mpls] Question about 0x8848 Ethertype
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Re: [mpls] Question about 0x8848 Ethertype

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.