Subject: RE: [PWE3] MPLS PID

From: "Ferrell, William" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:17:05 -0500

I see Eric

It seems as though your perspective is more specific to your
implementation.right ?
Will

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 3:03 PM
To: Ferrell, William
Cc: 'David Allan'; [email-masked]; 'Scott W Brim';
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] MPLS PID 

Eric> 6. No one has given a  reason why the first nibble of any such control
Eric>    word should not be as Stewart has proposed. 

David> Except that it breaks some  implementations that may have 0x04 in the
David> first nibble without being IP packets. 

Referring to implementations which don't use a martini control word? 

William> clarify  why  the exception  in  #6 is  so  easily  ignored in
your
William> opinion. 

Well, my company  does have implementations which omit  the control word, so
that's not it ;-)

We're in  a situation now in  which we have  things that don't work  so well
together (core routers doing ECMP  with MPLS, edge routers doing pseudowires
without a  martini control word).  If  we want everything  to work together,
something has to give, and it's not going to be something in the core ;-)