Thanks for the heads-up.
Please ensure that any BOF you hold does not conflict with either the MPLS
or CCAMP working group meetins. I predict that many people will wish to
attend all three meetings.
After a preliminary reading of draft-chakravorty-6lsa-01.txt it seems to
me that what you are suggesting has massive overlap with MPLS and GMPLS.
That you are proposing a form of layer 3 switching which is not part of
MPLS or GMPLS (but which has been suggested at several previous IETF
meetings) is a fairly minor fact since the data plane operation of
swapping and switching is unchanged. That is, you are proposing a new form
The bigger difference comes in how the labels are distributed, and in this
context, one might ask what is wrong with existing label distribution
But clearly I need to read in more detail.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bound, Jim" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 7:34 PM
Subject: 6LSA IETF Drafts
See below draft and two attached that will be available after the IETF.
It provides a solution for IPv6 Label Switch Architecture that does not
compete with MPLS or QOS work in progress in the industry at ITU, etc.
If some of you would do me a favor and review and send comments to Sham
Chakravorty [email protected], [email protected], and Kevin Zhang
[email protected] I would appreciate it. We will have a BOF most likely
on 6LSA at the Paris meeting to see if this would be its own working
group. We will set up industry list for technical persons to work on it
until then if we get enough responses. I am pretty sure we should do
this here in the IETF not go to the ITU. Also we will be at the
Minneapolis IETF so if you have in person comments that is appreciate
> Rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
Rtgwg mailing list