RE: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Dimitri,

Could you please clarify this question.

Thanks,
Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 3:30 PM
> To: Shahram Davari; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The authors of the draft might like to clarify for the list 
> exactly what
> data plane operations they are suggesting. To me it seems 
> possible that
> the draft is proposing VLAN ID *swapping*. But an alternative 
> is that the
> VLAN ID is used as a label, but that the same label is used 
> for the full
> length of the LSP.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Shahram Davari" <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
> To: "'Adrian Farrel'" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 9:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > The only issue that I have is with VLAN switching. Since 
> VLAN switching
> > is not a standard 802.1Q behavior, it can't be used with existing
> Ethernet
> > hardware. Therefore the scope of this draft is not limited to
> control-plane,
> > and requires new data-plane that is not defined in IEEE yet.
> >
> > If the VLAN switching is removed from the draft, I support 
> accepting it
> as
> > a WG draft.
> >
> > Yours,
> > -Shahram
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 6:46 AM
> > > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > There is a draft
> > > (draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-l2sc-lsp-03.txt) that we
> > > have discussed at several of the more recent CCAMP 
> meetings, and have
> > > decided that the subject is within scope for our charter.
> > >
> > > The questions we have faced have been:
> > > - is the problem well enough articulated?
> > > - is this the solution that the WG wants to pursue?
> > > - is there a high enough level of interest in this work?
> > >
> > > If the answer to all three questions is "yes" then we can
> > > adopt the draft
> > > as a WG document and move forwards.
> > >
> > > Note: I think there are a large number of minor issues to
> > > clear up with
> > > this draft, but hopefully this is orthogonal to whether we
> > > make this a WG
> > > draft or not.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Adrian
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>