On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, obviously MPLS does meet the 'encap' requirement, and for any tunnel to > be effective, there is some mapping that directs traffic down the tunnel, so > to be liberal, one could say that 'map-and-encap' is fulfilled. > > However, in a more strict interpretation, I would claim that map-and-encap > architectures require a global mapping function that maps destination > addresses to tunneled next hops and creates two namespaces: one inside the > tunneled virtual topology and one underneath the tunnels.
Tony, Fair enough. The definition of map-encap has been expanding to a rather liberal scope recently. Perhaps we should seek a stricter definition. Though I wonder if there's a reason why we shouldn't strive to make our map-encap system as expansively capable in the inter-domain scope as MPLS is in the intra-domain scope. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
