Subject: RE: [PWE3] RE: draft-ietf-pwe3-cesopsn-03.txt anddraft-ietf-pwe3-satop-02.t xt

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:31:49 +0200

Sasha and Bill, 

I would like to add another reason for this strange situation. 

>From a layering point of view the PWE CW is the 
belongs right after the MPLS label stack,'
and under it there can be further service specific
headers that modify the PW charactersitics, e.g. RTP.

As Sasha said the CW being immediately after
the MPLS stack also has specific consequences,
but this is also the correct place for it.

However, for the UDP/IP case,
there is a long history of RTP being the way it is
and we should not try to change this.

Y(J)S

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

---

From: Skip Booth <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:54:48 -0400

> and we should not try to change this.

That's certainly true for the UDP/IP case but not for the L2TPv3 case.  The
control word should immediately follow the L2TPv3 session ID/cookie header and
the RTP header should follow the CW.  Note only will this allow for consistent
PW encapsulation processing for L2TPv3 and MPLS (as well as the actual CEM
processing), but it will also allow for the use of VCCV over L2TPv3 in CEM
applications.  We need to ensure that VCCV packets can be demultiplexed from
data-packets as part of the PW decapsulation processing.  Either that or we need
to define what the RTP header format should look like for VCCV packets which
AFAIK hasn't been done.

Cheers,
-Skip

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:04:35 -0400

> to define what the RTP header format should look like for VCCV  

     I vote for the former.  Lets use a single format if we can. 8)

     --Tom