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

Both the provider and the customer can independently run OAM, each using
their own label stack.   

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) 
>[mailto:nurit.sprecher@nsn.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:17 AM
>To: Drake, John E; ext Ben Niven-Jenkins; mpls-interop@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
>
>Well there is a difference, named control word. Also for OAM, 
>with or with out GALs.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Drake, John E [mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 19:02
>To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); ext Ben 
>Niven-Jenkins; mpls-interop@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
>
> 
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) 
>>[mailto:nurit.sprecher@nsn.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:55 AM
>>To: ext Ben Niven-Jenkins; mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
>>
>>The first option also allows you to have better trouble shooting in 
>>case of a problem (thanks to the clear separation).
>
>JD:  Regardless of whether you have MPLS TP/PW/MPLS *or* MPLS 
>TP/MPLS, you will have two label stacks.  The only difference 
>is whether the last label in the provider's stack is an PW 
>label *or* an MPLS label.  This was the point in Andy's first 
>e-mail, which as I read it, said that there was nothing magic 
>about that label being a PW label.
> 
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org
>>[mailto:mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ben 
>>Niven-Jenkins
>>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 00:41
>>To: mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>Subject: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
>>
>>Colleagues,
>>
>>What's the current view of how to support MPLS over MPLS-TP?
>>
>>Do we put a PW in the middle (like draft-bryant) or do we 
>just use the 
>>label stack and have MPLS directly over MPLS-TP?
>>
>>Advantage of the first is that it gives layer separation (e.g. 
>>If the two layers are operated by different parties), 
>advantage of the 
>>second is it's probably a bit simpler.
>>
>>Do the drafts we have say anything about the MPLS over MPLS-TP case?
>>Same
>>for IP over MPLS-TP?
>>
>>Thanks
>>Ben
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Mpls-interop mailing list
>>Mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
>>_______________________________________________
>>Mpls-interop mailing list
>>Mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
Mpls-interop@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop