Yakov:
We don't have 14 values, we are talking inferring payload on
the basis of defacto IETF protocol payloads (IPv4 and IPv6). PWE3 and MPLS do
not own IPv4/v6 or any subsequent network layer protocols the IETF may choose
to develop.
I agree with Andy that if a PID is required, lets do it
properly.
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 11:08 AM
> To: W. Mark Townsley; Andrew G. Malis
>
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org; mpls@uu.net
> Subject: RE:
[PWE3] MPLS PID
>
>
> > One possibility for an extended PID that
comes to mind is
> > defining one of the
remaining 14 values within the first
> nibble as
"extended PID"
> > and follow it with whatever
PID definition you like.
>
> Another, which I proposed in draft-stein-pwe3-controlword-00.txt,
> is to use the 4 bits to disambiguate the relevant
possibilities.
>
> Since
an atm-encap implementation will probably not
>
understand ethernet-encap, the non 4/6 values could be used
> for submodes (e.g. 1:1, N:1, PDU, SDU). Similarly, the TDM
> sub-identifier could differentiate between
raw, AAL1, AAL2, etc.
>
> Alternatively, we could go for a "sanity check"
> PWE identifier. We have 14 values available
> and so far have only defined a few PW types
> (ATM, FR, SONET, TDM, ethernet).
>
> Y(J)S
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>