Hi, Mark:
Message-ID: <405F05D9.1080301@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:27:21 +0100
From: "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>
To: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>
Cc: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>,
sonet twister <sonet1010@yahoo.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: iMPLS benefit
References: <20040319220615.A245D15D3C4@popserv1.redback.com>Enke Chen wrote:
> Hi, Mark:
> I was no vacation and just became aware of this thread.Lucky you!
> I have some clarifications here:
>
> (1) The relevant implementation is "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic
> Routing Encapsulation (GRE)" for L3VPN (draft-ietf-mpls-in-ip-or-gre-xx.txt)This draft describes encapsulation and decapsulation of MPLS over IP, MPLS over
GRE (with and without optional GRE fields), and (in more recent versions)
touches on all of these encapsulation modes in the presence of IPsec. There is
no detail on dynamic establishment of GRE tunnels here.
I should have mentioned the draft "Use of PE-PE GRE or IP in RFC2547 VPNs"
(draft-ietf-l3vpn-gre-ip-2547-xx.txt), in which the notion of dynamic
GRE tunnel is defined: