Subject: [PWE3] comments about draft-bryant-pwe3-packet-pw-01.txt

From: Lucy Yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:29:19 -0500

Hi Bryant,

I have some comments about this version.

1)     It is necessary to state that packet pw works under ms-pw.
[ms-pw-arch]  A packet pw can work under ms-pw, from client network
perspective, a single link (PPP) is supported by the packet PW, from server
network perspective, the packet PW may be constructed through multi-segment
PW, i.e. each segment may use different PW label (pw demultiplexer) but no
change on the control word.

2)     A LSP in a server network can also be used as a data-link in a client
network. It is good to provide some comparison in the draft. One advantage
to use packet pw is that LSP only applies to single IGP domain while PW has
MS-PW. Another is that PW solution provides a data-link encapsulation by
using CW. LSP does not have such schema.

3)     Some Typos: 

1. Introduction: "either a MPLS network of a network conforming to the
MPLS-TP." - should be "or a network"

                    "the same data-link type MUST be to attach the clients
to the PEs" - should be " MUST be used"

                    "that two adjacent MPLS LSPs do not simply exchange MPSL
packets" -should be "two client"

Figure 4: title is not correct

8. Client Network Layer Model: "Network Layer adjacency . between client
equipment will the follow normal .", -should be "will follow"

Regards,

Lucy

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:15:46 +0100

Lucy
> perspective, a single link (PPP) is supported by the packet PW, from 
> server network perspective, the packet PW may be constructed through 
> multi-segment PW, i.e. each segment may use different PW label (pw 
> demultiplexer) but no change on the control word.
>
Strictly it's not necessary to state this, since MS-PW MUST be able to 
carry any PW without change to the PW encapsulation. However we can add 
the clarification.
>
> 2) A LSP in a server network can also be used as a data-link in a 
> client network. It is good to provide some comparison in the draft. 
> One advantage to use packet pw is that LSP only applies to single IGP 
> domain while PW has MS-PW. Another is that PW solution provides a 
> data-link encapsulation by using CW. LSP does not have such schema.
>
I need to think about this some more, particularly in the light of some 
of the discussions that are taking place regarding MPLS-TP and clients.
One way or another we will address this in the next version.
>
> 3) Some Typos:
>
> 1. Introduction: “either a MPLS network of a network conforming to the 
> MPLS-TP.” – should be “or a network”
>
> “the same data-link type MUST be to attach the clients to the PEs” – 
> should be “ MUST be used”
>
> “that two adjacent MPLS LSPs do not simply exchange MPSL packets” 
> –should be “two client”
>
> 8. Client Network Layer Model: “Network Layer adjacency … between 
> client equipment will the follow normal …”, -should be “will follow”
>
> Thanks -we will fix that.
Thanks for the comments

Stewart