Subject: [Fwd: Re: [PWE3] PWE over Alternative networks]

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:55:29 +0000

Resend (due to some strange email corruption of the original)

- Stewart

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE over Alternative networks
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:33:20 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
To: David Allan <[email-masked]>
References: 
<[email-masked]>

Dave

My core question question is - what changes
with regard to PWE3 itself in this context?

Is there a change to the PWE3 component of the encap
(as distinct from the PSN component), the PWE3 control
plane, the PWE3 OAM.....

i.e. what do you want to do, that you cannot do with the
existing PWE3 design, and what additional changes will you
then need to do to PWE3 to support that application?

- Stewart

David Allan wrote:

> In the context of my last post consider this snipped of RFC 4447 Luca
> highlighted
> 
> "However, if the pseudowire endpoints are immediately adjacent and
> penultimate hop popping
> behavior is in use, the MPLS tunnel may not be necessary.  Any sort of
> PSN tunnel can be used, as long as it is possible to transmit MPLS
> packets through it.  " 
> 
> Not really implicit is it?, there are a lot of pre-requisites
> implied/required which I'd like to simply have the option of dispesing
> with...
> 
> Cheers
> Dave 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:13 AM
> To: Allan, David (CAR:NS00)
> Cc: Luca Martini; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE over Alternative networks
> 
>  From a *PWE3* point of view, what changes when you replace a PSN with
> only two nodes with length of wire. i.e. what are the consequences for
> the PWE3 design of explicitly rather thna implicitly recognising the
> existance of the NULL-PSN?
> 
> - Stewart
> 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3