Re: [PWOT] mpls-in-ip

> 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?"

  yes

> 2) can ip be regarded as "transport?"

  yes

> 3) should mpls-in-ip be a standards track work item for
> pwot?

  sure

> 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.

  general agreement from this vector.

> 
> 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