RE: decisions on L2 solutions documents

Neil,

> > 
> > Wouldn't it be kind of cool if we could use the same 
> > addressing format for 
> > what ever MPLS LSP/pseudo wire/tunnel? Is it too simple to 
> > say we always 
> > identify the end-point of an LSP/PW/tunnel with a unique 
> > address (I mean 
> > unique for the LSP/PW/tunnel so no 2 PWs share the same address)? 
> > 
> But it that case how about pw created for l2vpns.
> NH=> Hamid why do you think you need PWs at all?  


Actually I don't need them :-). I see them as a tool
for l2vpns (among others)...and Peter mentioned addresses
for pw...so I asked :-)...

>The only 
> reasons PWs exist
> is as follows:
> -	to fix the problems caused by mp2p LSPs.....if you want any-any
> connectivity use a cnls mode, in a co pkt-sw mode only p2p and p2mp
> constructions make any arch sense....mp2p leads to problems 
> and kludges;
> -	to keep the pretence-up that MPLS =~ IP.....if true why 
> do we need
> MPLS then?  Use the right mode for the right application....both are
> required;
> -	to squeeze a bit of the server-layer BW via client 
> compression (a
> total non-issue IMO when other technolgies squander BW).
> 
> Would these 
> addresses be required to be always unique or can be 
> overlapping?  
> NH=> PWs are *not* a layer network....they are actually a set of
> encapsulation functions that belongs in the client->server adaptation
> process (network-interworking case). 

Isn't control/signaling, establishment of pws part of pwe3 work 
besides just encapsulation... 

> Client->server 
> adaptation should be a
> minimalist mapping with (ideally) no functions that need 
> management (eg
> sequence number aberrations).  PWs don't need addresses, ie 
> PWs are not
> switched network entities like LSPs...its MPLS that needs access point
> addresses in its own right since MPLS creates a layer 
> network.  Further,
> when one considers mixed partition service-interworking 
> between technologies
> belonging to the *same* network mode (eg 
> FR_access<=>MPLS_core<=>ATM_access)
> PWs simply disappear anyway.  I know service-interworking is 
> not on IETF's
> (PWE3) agenda, but speaking as an operator its very high on 
> ours to drive
> down capex/opex so we can have a common core per network 
> mode.....so please
> (as a vendor) don't ignore it.
> 

Not at all ignoring it. I am actually in favor of addressing
interworking case and I don't see all l2vpn problems need to be solved
only through pwe3 to be taken as a complete package. In fact BGP 
signaling is an example that pwe3 encaps can be useful without pw 
signaling scheme (that's maybe a different topic)...

> Its the above issues that sit behind Peter's original comments.
> 

Okay. Not sure I understand the client-server terminology 
and mpls/pwe3 layer subtleties...I guess this topic is more appropriate with
PWE3 layer discussions and MPLS layer debate going on
in pwe3 wg.

Hamid.