1 Jul 2007 07:21
RE: New Liaison Statement, "Response to PWE3 and MPLS WG concerns with G.8110.1 Amendment 1"
Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s <at> rad.com>
2007-07-01 05:21:20 GMT
2007-07-01 05:21:20 GMT
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: neil.2.harrison <at> bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison <at> bt.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 09:27 To: Yaakov Stein Cc: stbryant <at> cisco.com 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(Continue reading)
RSS Feed