Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP

["Drake, John E" <[e-mail]>]

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:23 AM
>To: Malis, Andrew G. (Andy); Drake, John E; Adrian Farrel; Ben 
>Niven-Jenkins; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
>
>Andy,
>
>I am of the opinion that PW provides the better demarcation 
>than mapping client MPLS or IP packets directly over the 
>MPLS-TP tunnel. The generalized useage comes by virtue of 
>being able to map different kinds of PWs over MPLS-TP tunnels.

JD:  I'm sure everyone has a different opinion.  By saying that MPLS TP
is payload agnostic, we allow each service provider to make their own
decision wrt service demarcation.

>
>Now, MPLS-PWoverMPLS-TP vs client-MPLSoverMPLS-TP are 
>virtually indistiguishable at the LSRs, but atleast PW labels 
>have provider label contexts at the LSEs.

JD:  What is so much more appealing about having provider label context
via a PW label rather than an MPLS Label?  

>Not sure if 
>erroneous label pop changing the trajectory is a solvable 
>problem in MPLS (especially for stacked labels).
>
>/himanshu
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail]
>[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Malis, Andrew G.
>(Andy)
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:33 AM
>To: Drake, John E; Adrian Farrel; Ben Niven-Jenkins; 
>[e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
>
>John,
>
>Exactly.
>
>Cheers,
>Andy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Drake, John E [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:28 AM
>To: Malis, Andrew G. (Andy); Adrian Farrel; Ben Niven-Jenkins; 
>[e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
>
>Andy,
>
>Great.  So, it is up to the client endpoints of the MPLS TP 
>LSP to understand the payload contents and we could have as 
>payloads, for example, MPLS packets with their own label 
>stack, IP packets, or ethernet PW packets which in turn 
>contain, for example, MPLS packets or IP packets.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Malis, Andrew G. (Andy) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:19 AM
>>To: Drake, John E; Adrian Farrel; Ben Niven-Jenkins; 
>>[e-mail]
>>Subject: RE: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
>>
>>John,
>>
>>JD:  I agree with your point about PW labels, but doesn't the same 
>>point apply to the label stack with two EOS bits?  Viz, 
>having the EOS 
>>bit set will not prevent an implementation from messing up 
>the stack in
>
>>arbitrary and capricious ways.
>>
>>Isn't another alternative to just have the MPLS TP network be 
>>completely agnostic to the contents of its payloads, as a 
>server layer 
>>is supposed to be?
>>In that case, the payload could in fact be an MPLS payload 
>with its own
>
>>stack.
>>
>>AM> I must not have been clear enough, because that was my
>>intention. We
>>are in agreement here. The payload would not have to be another MPLS 
>>stack, but it could be, and that was the context of the original 
>>discussion between Ben and Adrian.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Andy
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Mpls-interop mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
>
>
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop