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

All,
Adrain made an effort to move this to the mpls-tp list, we should take the discussion there.

Make sure you send to the mpls-tp list(at least) if ypu couy the MEAD list that is fine, but the
effect is that everyone copied explicitly on this list gets two mails.

/Loa

________________________________________
From: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org [mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Malis, Andrew G. (Andy) [andrew.g.malis@verizon.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 16:32
To: Drake, John E; Adrian Farrel; Ben Niven-Jenkins; mpls-interop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS over MPLS-TP

John,

Exactly.

Cheers,
Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Drake, John E [mailto:John.E.Drake2@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:28 AM
To: Malis, Andrew G. (Andy); Adrian Farrel; Ben Niven-Jenkins;
mpls-interop@ietf.org
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:andrew.g.malis@verizon.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:19 AM
>To: Drake, John E; Adrian Farrel; Ben Niven-Jenkins;
>mpls-interop@ietf.org
>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
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