RE: [PWE3] PWE Service interworking

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

>Question for you though, is it interworking to MPLS
>that is required, or interworking to PW that is
>required.

Interworking with MPLS is required, but MPLS itself must have
some sort of adaptation layer, which could be similar to CW in
the PW.

>
>I would also not that at one of the IWFs
>RFC1483/RFC1490 interworking should be an option, what
>would you suggest in that regard?

If the core is MPLS, then I don't see the need.

>
>Also I assume you don't ever see MPLS as being as
>service interface from your response?

No, it might be.

>
>And do you see this model working also for Ethernet to
>ATM/FR interworking?

I don't know.

-Shahram

>
>Thanks,
>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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> -Shahram
>
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3