Re: RFC 4591 and RFC 4349: DLCI at egress LCCE

Carlos,

I agree, but I don't understand why. If a Frame Relay circuit is 
transported over a L2TPv3 HDLCoPW, the egress LCCE builds a FR frame 
with the same DLCI as the FR frame received by the ingress LCCE. If DLCI 
has local significance, CE/ingress_LCCE may use a different DLCI as 
CE/egress_LCCE. Why is not required here that the egress LCCE re-writes 
the DLCI (although it's not visible to PW)?.

Thanks,

Javi



Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) escribió:
> Javi,
>
> Because the "port mode" does not have granularity/visibility into the
> DLCI level.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Carlos.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Javi
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:46 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [L2tpext] RFC 4591 and RFC 4349: DLCI at egress LCCE
>
> + Frame Relay traffic transported in a "virtual circuit-to-virtual 
> circuit" mode by L2TPv3 FRPW: Due to local significance of the DLCI, the
>
> egress LCCE re-writes the DLCI.
>
>      RFC 4591 (L2TPv3 FRPW), clause 5
>      The Frame Relay frame is transported in its entirety, including the
>
> DLCI ...  The egress LCCE re-writes the DLCI...
>
> + Frame Relay traffic transported in a "port" mode by L2TPv3 HDLCoPW 
> (RFC 4349): It's not mentioned any DLCI modification at the egress LCCE.
>
> Why is it not necessary here (similarly, DLCI significance is local)?
>
> Javi
> _______________________________________________
> L2tpext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>
> _______________________________________________
> L2tpext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>
>