Hi Jim, fully agreed that MPLS should not be absent from the draft, and it is not. The current draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-list-03 doesn't restrict things to IP tunneling. The draft already allows for MPLS transport between Gateway and AFTR using MPLS VPNs.
Hence the question: For the use cases you have in mind, couldn't we just use MPLS VPNs (possibly even point-to-point with just two PEs in a VPN - Gateway and the AFTR)? Personally I've nothing against additional encapsulations, though so far there's always been a push in the WG (and also in 3GPP SA2) to keep the number of encapsulations to a minimum (e.g. L2TPv3 was dropped from the list of encaps, because we could do the very same thing with GRE). On multicast: Don't fully follow your thought below. Do you consider running multicast over the softwire between AFTR and Gateway? The multicast considerations for GI-DS-lite (see draft-brockners-softwire-mcast-gi-ds-lite-00) so far assume that this would not be the case. Thanks, Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Guichard [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:43 PM > > Hi Frank, > > bi-directional tunnels are necessary if you wish for traffic flows to > take > the same path in both directions across the network. It is possible to > use > point-to-point but this is cumbersome to deploy. Point-to-multipoint > may > be necessary for multicast. > > Clearly IP-in-MPLS tunneling is a fundamental requirement that should > not > be absent from the draft. If an operator has MPLS why restrict them to > IP > tunneling? > > > > > >to kick-start the discussion, could you outline the usage scenarios > that > >would drive the requirements you mention below? > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
