loa,
during the discussion loop one of the possibilities that came out consisted in using a dedicated TPID value (different from the value 0x8100 used in .1q), that would precede the encoded value as part of the TCI
would you please clarify your specific concern ? i would like also to point out that there are several cases here
1. both type of traffic on the same switch but not necessarily on the same interface
2. both type of traffic on the same interface
with the following variant
2a. interface must accommodate any type of traffic (un-/tagged and labeled)
2b. interface must accommodate tagged and labeled type of traffic only
thanks,
- dimitri.
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
07/22/2005 12:04 ZE2
To: Pär Mattsson <per@defero.se>
cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
bcc:
Subject: Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.
Per and Dimitri,
I would like to come down stronger than that, for me it is
a very strong requirement that the same switch can handle
both VLANs and GMPLs trafic correctly. I can't dsee how that
could be done if using the VLAN tpid to indicate GMPLS
traffic.
/Loa
Pär Mattsson wrote:
>>hi par, one of the possibilities that has been considered to cope with
>>this requirement is to use a dedicated TPID for the Ethernet labeled
>>frames; this would allow differentiated processing with non-labeled
>>framesthanks.
>
>
> That seems to make more sence. If that frame is to be sized like a 802.1q
> frame. There is not that much space left to a label. Or is the demand to
> use jumboframes ?
> Has there been any discussion on labelstacking, and mainly where to place
> the information?
>
> Regards.
> Per
>
>
>
--
Loa Andersson
Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se