IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com> Thu, 11 December 2008 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mpls-interop-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mpls-interop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7A53A6768; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:54:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481533A68B8 for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:54:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.875
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.875 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.276, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c8mudjsklSt6 for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:54:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41AAC3A6768 for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:54:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBGsnXt008639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:54:49 +0100
Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBBGsnDh002555; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:54:49 +0100
Received: from DEMUEXC030.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.57]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:54:48 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:54:40 +0100
Message-ID: <43284B5A95E36B4AB4A91EBA4E0FC31E010631AC@DEMUEXC030.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <C565F5E6.F2C5%benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
Thread-Index: AclbGFKaGGhxsocFx0ysGuEoM9LmMAAmK2cg
References: <49392C0B.4090202@chello.nl> <C565F5E6.F2C5%benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com>
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>
To: "ext Ben Niven-Jenkins" <benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com>, <mpls-interop@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2008 16:54:48.0759 (UTC) FILETIME=[2D81CC70:01C95BB1]
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP
X-BeenThere: mpls-interop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF MPLS Interoperability Design Team <mpls-interop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop>, <mailto:mpls-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/mpls-interop>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-interop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop>, <mailto:mpls-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org

The first option also allows you to have better trouble shooting in case
of a problem (thanks to the clear separation). 

-----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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email