"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: > >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.
N.B. That's duct tape, not scotch tape. The author knew his stuff, both white and black. Mr. Waitzman's care in selecting the more robust concatenation method is appreciated even to this day. This brings up a related issue. What if someone wanted to transport MPLS packets directly onto fiber, without ATM or SONET/SDH. I realize there will be management issues, but can't the M-plane (not to be confused with avian carriers, mind you) be carried in a separate channel or even on a separate medium? I'm serious. Is there any reason why MPLS cannot be transported directly on fiber, perhaps even in time slots? Have the GMPLS and IPO WGs addressed this issue? -- TT Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42309&t=42214 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
