>Is there some reason that ATM is necessary for MPLS implementations in low >end Cisco products? It's been my understanding that VPI/VCI field usage >for labels in any implementation is generally not used. Every mpls network >I've worked on used shim headers which makes MPLS l2 agnostic.
Not as far as I know. Should work even with an extra piece of tape on an RFC1149 transport. > > >At 05:24 AM 4/22/2002 -0400, Tom Scott wrote: >>Howard and scenario builders, >> >>Do you have any MPLS labs that don't use ATM? Maybe combining low-end >>(read "affordable") cisco routers and James Leu's "MPLS for LInux" >>project? >> > >-- TT Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42270&t=42214 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
