RE: [PWE3] PWE Service interworking

[Mark Seery <mark@mseery.com>]

Hi Sharam,

A follow-up below,
Mark

--- Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> Regarding Service interworking I believe the
> simplest and
> most logical model is to do service interworking
> with MPLS
> on both IWFs. Assuming (PL= Payload), the following
> figure shows an
> example of what I think is a proper AT-MPLS-FR
> service interworking:
> 
> 
> CE--------PE-------P--------PE---------CE
>      PL        PL      PL        PL
>     AAL5       X       X        Q.922
>     ATM       MPLS    MPLS       FR
> 
> Both PEs do service interworking. One does ATM-MPLS
> service
> interworking and the other one does FR-MPLS service
> interworking.

MS=> From a logisitical perspective, does this
approach require the common "X" payload to be
(re)defined, and then does it replace existing encap
definitions - my assumption is that it would. Note:
not making a value judgement, just asking what the
path forward would look like.
 
> The advantage is that each PE needs to support a
> maximum of N service
> interworking functions (N is all known L2
> protocols). While your 
> proposed model requires N square service
> interworking functions to be
> supported in a single PE.

Understood, thanks for pointing out.
Mark
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3