Subject: RE: RE: [AVT] FEC draft (fwd)

From: "White, Craig (Level 3)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:26:45 -0600

Oops, sorry I didn't think to include you guys on this since I did mention "our" group! And like I indicated, while it would be fun to be having issues along these "more" advanced topics (which I'm sure we'll get to!!!)

Please excuse my oversight!! Great catch Lloyd... Good to see I'm not the only "cross-subscribed" member :)

-craig

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Lloyd
Wood
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 2:46 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PWE3] RE: [AVT] FEC draft (fwd)

AVT brings stuff out into the open and scores points with a
PWE3-aware reader...

below.

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[email-masked]>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:32:10 -0600
From: "White, Craig (Level 3)" <[email-masked]>
To: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [AVT] FEC draft

Hi!

As a long time lurker (don't know if anyone remembers the sonet draft
I proposed eons ago), I just wanted to say to the whole of the group.
Not that there is anything special about this particular email (other
than I'm interested in FEC) but this e-mail just prompted me to write
this note, and I'd like to let you know that:

YOU GUYS ROCK!!!!

I have no technical content to add, just a word of encouragement! As
you may or may not know, I've been working out of the PWE3 group and
only wish we were beginning to work on issues like these, rather than
what's going on over there (not saying that the work PWE3 is doing is
not worthwhile...)

Carry on!
-craig

*SNIP*

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:35:50 +0000

Lloyd Wood wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, White, Craig (Level 3) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Oops, sorry I didn't think to include you guys on this since I did
>>mention "our" group! And like I indicated, while it would be fun to
>>be having issues along these "more" advanced topics (which I'm sure
>>we'll get to!!!)
>>
>>Please excuse my oversight!! Great catch Lloyd... Good to see I'm
>>not the only "cross-subscribed" member :)
> 
> 
> I'm not cross. Just permanently peeved.
> 
> L.
> 
> now, what were the first four bits of the Martini encap for again?
> and did it ever get discussed openly on the list?

 From draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-06.txt

5.4.3. PW over MPLS Generic Control Word

    To allow accurate packet inspection in an MPLS PSN, and/or to operate
    correctly over MPLS PSNs that have deployed equal-cost multiple-path
    load-balancing (ECMP), a PW packet MUST NOT alias an IP packet.

and

5.4.4. PWE3 Payload Type Identifier

    If technical considerations result in a PW control word that may
    alias an IP packet, the control word SHOULD be preceded by an PWE3
    payload type identifier (PWE3 PID).

Stewart

> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
>