[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [PWE3] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "IP protocol number for PW using RFC 4023"

Yaakov,

I agree that protocol number 137 is correct, but to be precise, the PW packet does have an MPLS header with a PW label, it just doesn't have a tunnel label, because that's been replaced by the IP header.

I added the MPLS WG on this reply since the liaison was sent to both WGs, and in fact I think the return liaison should be generated by the MPLS WG, since it was the source of RFC 4023.

Cheers,
Andy

----------

At 8/22/2006 15:30 +0200, Yaakov Stein wrote: 
 Hi all,

We have discussed the basic issue in the past.

Rahul brought it up at IETF58 (draft-raggarwa-pwe3-pw-over-ip)
and the majority there thought the technique obvious enough
not to require a WG draft.

Mark T has also discussed this
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0402/pdf/townsley.pdf.

I believe that we should answer that protocol number 137
is satisfactory for a PW packet without an MPLS header.

Y(J)S 


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3