Subject: RE: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement, "Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:21:20 +0300

Neil, 

Yes, I quite agree that there can be client-server relationships (either
way).

What I want is a clear statement that there can be no peer relationship.

Sasha's comment on separate Ethertypes is, of course, a good solution,
but we need to state the requirement first and then give this as one
possible solution.
BTW, we have requested this several times already.

BTW

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 09:27
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [PWE3] New Liaison Statement,"Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG
concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"

Hi Yaakov,

Good point...a key corollary of which IMO is that T-MPLS cannot be
claimed to be a sub-set of MPLS.....so one could call T-MPLS anything
one likes now....indeed, perhaps IETF should request this of ITU to
avoid any confusion?

However, whilst I accept there should be no attempt at interworking MPLS
and T-MPLS as though they were peers (essentially the horizontal
partitioning of what looks like a single layer network...so I agree this
needs clearly stating) there ought to be some clarification of what
client/server relationships are intended (if any?) to exist between MPLS
and T-MPLS (both ways, ie MPLSoT-MPLS and T-MPLSoMPLS).

regards, Neil

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