Just as we discussed for many times, 3 approaches use different identifiers.
For me, Multi-PW uses different PATH (Multi-PW), but CW or Dual-VLAN uses
inferring context in frames.
So CW also has same HVPLS deployment problem.
From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@...]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 7:33 PM
To: Jiangyuanlong; Sam Cao
Cc: l2vpn@... Subject: RE: Discussion on E-Tree and H-VPLS
Sam, Yuanlong and all,
From my point of view the CW-based solution is by far the simplest way to
deal with H-VPLS: all that is required is preservation of the CW (or, in the
unlikely case PW sequencing is used, of its flags) when a packet is
forwarded from the "core" PW to a "spoke" one (or vice versa).
With Dual PWE the situation becomes more complicated IMO. Not sure about
dual VLAN - but may be also tricky.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: l2vpn-bounces@... [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@...] On Behalf
> Of Jiangyuanlong
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 2:23 PM
> To: Sam Cao
> Cc: l2vpn@... > Subject: Discussion on E-Tree and H-VPLS
> Please see my comments in line. I also change the title to reflect the