[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PWE3] PWE3 Charter Update - **DRAFT Charter v0.1**
On 12/05/2008 15:27, "Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s at rad.com> wrote:
>> Many wires are trees! Certainly pt-mp wires exist in the transport
> world and have done for many years.
>
> If this is automatic, then we needn't define anything for it.
> The problem is when you start defining tree-specific mechanisms.
I'm not sure what you mean by automatic.
If I understand you correctly Yaakov - are you basically saying that we need
do nothing special at the PW layer as we would expect to map the PW into a
P2MP server layer (e.g. MPLS) construct (LSP)?
>> Unless we specify pt-mp PWs we condemn our users to emulate pt-mp
> using a set of pt-pt PWs.
>
> No, we needn't define them. Others can - and will. VPLS was defined by
> L2VPN quite nicely
> based on the Ethernet PW, without PWE3 having to get involved.
>
>> What is needed is the ability to map a pt-mp service through a pt-mp
> PW and then onto a multicast PSN.
>
> Or to map a pt-mp service onto N pt-pt ones, and then map each pt-pt one
> onto a PW.
Hardly efficient using a bunch of Pt-Pt PWs to emulate a P2MP one (with
ingress replication I assume) though is it?
Ben
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3