Subject: [PWE3] Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10

From: "Ken Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:07:25 -0400

All,
 
Since the PW-ENET MIB is heading for last call, I reviewed the MIB today.  I realised that the MIB does not comply to the MEF's view of Ethernet E-line services.  For more information on this definition, please refer to: 
 
http://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDFs/Standards/Overview_of_MEF_6_and_10.ppt <https://webaccess.hostedmail.net/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDFs/Standards/Overview_of_MEF_6_and_10.ppt> 
 
I realise that this was not the stated intention of the MIB but I would like to see the gaps closed.  Note that I believe this gap is small.  We only need to address 3 issues:
 
1/  defining a default VLAN for the untagged and priority packets (this may already be possible)
2/  define how L2CP protocols are handled (right now they are tunnelled).  We need to add the capability to discard L2CP packets.  I believe this is desirable on a per L2CP basis but I need to verify this.
3/  define a way to map p-bit / vlans to a PW.  The rest are discarded.
 
I need to review this in more detail to make sure these are the only gaps.  However, before I went through this effort, I wanted to bring this issue to the list.
 
Do we see MEF compliance as an objective of the PW-ENET service?
 
Please let me know,
Ken

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

---

From: "David Zelig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:18:54 +0200

Ken,
Please see inside. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Young [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Lyndon Ong; David Zelig; [email-masked]; Brian Smith; Chris
Barrett
Subject: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10

All,
 
Since the PW-ENET MIB is heading for last call, I reviewed the MIB
today.  I realised that the MIB does not comply to the MEF's view of
Ethernet E-line services.  For more information on this definition,
please refer to: 
 
http://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDFs/Standards/Overview_of_MEF_6_and_1
0.ppt
<https://webaccess.hostedmail.net/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.m
etroethernetforum.org/PDFs/Standards/Overview_of_MEF_6_and_10.ppt> 
 
I realise that this was not the stated intention of the MIB but I would
like to see the gaps closed.  Note that I believe this gap is small.  We
only need to address 3 issues:
 
1/  defining a default VLAN for the untagged and priority packets (this
may already be possible) 
[DZ] Assigning a PW for the default VLAN and priority tagged packets can
be supported by the PW-ENET-STD-MIB. 

2/  define how L2CP protocols are handled (right now they are
tunnelled).  We need to add the capability to discard L2CP packets.  I
believe this is desirable on a per L2CP basis but I need to verify this.
[DZ] I think that this part of the functionality is part of the NSP
function. In addition, the MEF may change the specifications at any
time, and there is no mutual process to synchronize the specifications.

3/  define a way to map p-bit / vlans to a PW.  The rest are discarded.
[DZ] I believe that this functionality is out of the scope of the PWE3
group (and as such from PWE3 MIB modules). Note also that traffic
descriptors at the PW level (as exist in the MEF) are not defined as QOS
issues are not defined within the group.

I need to review this in more detail to make sure these are the only
gaps.  However, before I went through this effort, I wanted to bring
this issue to the list.
 
Do we see MEF compliance as an objective of the PW-ENET service?
[DZ] There is no mutual process between the MEF and IETF to adjust the
specifications. The MIB modules are derived from IETF specifications. If
the specifications will changed, than we can adapt the MIB modules.

Thanks
David
 
Please let me know,
Ken

---

From: "Ken Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:03:53 -0400

David,
 
Thanks for resolving issue 1.  That gets the list down to 2 outstanding issues.
 
I agree with your comments on issue 2.  L2CP discards should be provisioned as part of the NSP.  Isn't that what the PW-ENET-MIB is defining for these types of PWs?
 
I hear your point on the fact that there is no process between the MEF and IETF on this issue.  I am going to raise this in the MEF technical community and get back to list on this topic.
 
I personally believe this is important since the MEF is defining the customer facing attributes of an Ethernet service offered by Service providers.  We have customers demanding that we be MEF certified to be able to sell our equipment.  I would prefer to use a standard MIB for this since this is not any part of our secret sauce and I think other companies will benefit.
 
My 2 cents,
Ken

________________________________

From: David Zelig [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thu 3/22/2007 08:18
To: Ken Young; [email-masked]
Cc: Lyndon Ong; [email-masked]; Brian Smith; Chris Barrett
Subject: RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10

Ken,
Please see inside.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Young [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Lyndon Ong; David Zelig; [email-masked]; Brian Smith; Chris
Barrett

All,

Thanks
David

Please let me know,
Ken