Re: [PWOT] mpls-in-ip

>
>3) if i'm right on the above two points then i think
>pwot would the right place to write a standard
>encapsulation of mpls in ip, should the ietf want such
>as standard.

Well, my first reaction was that it's a stretch.

On the other hand I'd agree that defining a standard for MPLSinIP and/or 
documenting MPLSinGRE is a "good thing". And if there isn't another working 
group where it fits, Tom's reasoning below isn't totally outrageous.

Certainly this group seems to be intended to cover both
- tunneling X in MPLS
and
- tunneling X in IP
so
- Tunneling X in MPLS in IP
might be a natural leap.

At 11:37 AM 2/27/2001 -0500, tom worster wrote:
>i'd like to ask the to-be-working group three questions
>relating to this draft (it should show in the repository
>soon, a url is given below):
>
>1) is an mpls lsp an example of a "pseudo-wire?"
>
>2) can ip be regarded as "transport?"
>
>3) should mpls-in-ip be a standards track work item for
>pwot?
>
>in which the terms pseudo-wire and transport express the
>scope of the wg.
>
>my opinions are.
>
>1) yes. if an atm connection, frame relay connection,
>ds1 or oc3 are considered pseudo-wires then i think
>an mpls lsp can reasonably be considered a pseudo-wire.
>
>2) yes. the usage of "transport" in the pwot group seems
>to be more general than other uses. if mpls (which is a
>sub-ip protocol) is a transport protocol along side tcp,
>udp, rtp (which are all super-ip), etc., then i don't
>see why ip can't also be regarded as providing transport.
>
>3) if i'm right on the above two points then i think
>pwot would the right place to write a standard
>encapsulation of mpls in ip, should the ietf want such
>as standard.
>
>
>http://thefsb.org/draft-worster-mpls-in-ip-03.txt
>
>c u
>fsb
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwot mailing list
>pwot@ietf.org
>http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwot

_______________________________________________
pwot mailing list
pwot@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwot