Re: decisions on L2 solutions documents

>
>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)?

What happens if one only knows the "next-hop" and the next-hop knows how to 
get to the next-hop and so on?

Is that a problem? Or is that "not nice"??

>
>Now I know the problem is IPv4 space isn't big enough to do this so why not
>use IPv6 addresses? Since you've got to implement IPv6 at the RFC 
>specification
>level anyway wouldn't it be good to use IPv6 to address LSPs/PWs/tunnels
>consistently? That way we'll have another incentive to move to IPv6 - it'll
>ease the management & implementation of LSPs/PWs/tunnels.


That would be nice too.

I wish we (the market) knew who already owns /8s of v6 addresses.......

Is the address distribution done by drawing out globe and saying "so and so 
latitude and longitude will have so and so address?"

-SylviaXO

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail