I am sorry flooding the mailing list. Rajiv is kind to remind me I am wrong. RFC4761/4762 are meant for VPLS. According to this link http://www.networkers-online.com/blog/2009/01/draft-martini-draft-kompella-a nd-l2vpn-services/, draft-martini was published as RFC4906 (Categorized as Historic). Both LDP and BGP was combined to be RFC6074. draft-kompella was never standardized.
From: "Yiu L. LEE" <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:52:01 +0000 To: Maoke <[email protected]>, Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent as MAP-E I am sorry, the two drafts should be RFC4447 and RFC4761. My mistake. From: "Yiu L. LEE" <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 22:45:50 +0000 To: Maoke <[email protected]>, Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent as MAP-E [YL] I can live with both stay as draft format. When Remi proposed 4rd-u, what he saw was a way to use reverse-header to support encapsulation w/o encapsulation overhead. This is why he called it "Unified". However, this doesn't mean it must replace MAP-E/T. This recalls me when L2-MPLS started the work, we had BGP and LDP for signaling. In the end, we have RFC4761 and RFC4762. It isn't end of the world, is it? _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
