Subject: Re: Comments on draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-00.txt

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 21:17:01 -0700

At 06:29 PM 12/22/99 -0500, Greg Waters wrote:
>At 10:33 PM 12/22/99 +0000, Luca Martini wrote:
>>> 2. There was no discussion of the requirements this particular draft was
>>> trying to meet, or any comparison of the pluses and minuses of this draft
>>> to any of the other L2 tunneling mechanisms in use, such as GRE.
>>
>>This method is meant to allow a service provider to offer frame-relay ,
>>or ATM AAL5 transport services across an MPLS backbone.
>
>Should your draft discuss tunneling raw ATM cells (sometimes called
>"AAL0") over MPLS?  In that case, OAM F5 cells flow naturally through
>the tunnel, and the tunnel end-points can more easily complete the
>ATM VCC service emulation (generate alarms or propagate F5 loopback).
>In addition, tunneling raw ATM cells allows ATM VPC service emulation.
>Putting multiple raw ATM cells into each MPLS packet might be
>desirable for efficiency.

Or as a thought (yes a late one :) -

OAM F5 cells could be processed locally and tied into the state of an LSP.
Similarly w/ andy's question on FR endtoend pvc management, LMI could
manage either end of a PVC and tie into the state of the LSP.