At 8:14 AM -0400 4/23/02, Tom Scott wrote: >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >> >Is there some reason that ATM is necessary for MPLS implementations in low >> >end Cisco products? It's been my understanding that VPI/VCI field usage >> >for labels in any implementation is generally not used. Every mpls >network >> >I've worked on used shim headers which makes MPLS l2 agnostic. >> >> Not as far as I know. Should work even with an extra piece of tape on >> an RFC1149 transport. > >N.B. That's duct tape, not scotch tape. The author knew his stuff, both >white and >black. Mr. Waitzman's care in selecting the more robust concatenation method >is >appreciated even to this day.
I always wonder if he had generalized to amphibious avian carriers, would it instead have been duck tape? > >This brings up a related issue. What if someone wanted to transport MPLS >packets >directly onto fiber, without ATM or SONET/SDH. I realize there will be >management >issues, but can't the M-plane (not to be confused with avian carriers, mind >you) be >carried in a separate channel or even on a separate medium? > >I'm serious. Is there any reason why MPLS cannot be transported directly on >fiber, >perhaps even in time slots? Have the GMPLS and IPO WGs addressed this issue? > >-- TT That's exactly what those two working groups are doing, and other groups in the IETF sub-IP area are doing for other media such as cable TV. Complementing this is the IEEE 802.17 (IIRC) work on resilient packet rings as an alternative to SONET. If people are interested, go to http://www.ietf.org, click on "working groups," and scroll down to "sub-IP area." Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42317&t=42214 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
