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

["Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s at rad.com>]

Andy, 

As you know (as we have discussed this before),
by "without  MPLS header" I meant "without MPLS tunnel label"
but with a PW label.

Y(J)S


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:amalis at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 20:51
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: Danny McPherson; pwe3 WG ((((((((E-mail)))))))); mpls at ietf.org
Subject: 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tunnel label, because that's been replaced by the IP header.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