Subject: [PWE3] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:30:01 -0700

A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group of the IETF.

    Title         : Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire
    Author(s)     : G. Heron, et al
    Filename      : draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-04.txt
    Pages         : 21
    Date          : 2011-07-08
    
   This document presents a set of requirements and a framework for 
   providing a Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire (PW). The requirements 
   identified in this document are related to architecture, signaling 
   and maintenance aspects of Point-to-Multipoint PW operation. They are 
   proposed as guidelines for the standardization of such mechanisms. 
   Among other potential applications Point-to-Multipoint PWs SHOULD be 
   used to optimize the support of multicast layer 2 services (Virtual 
   Private LAN Service and Virtual Private Multicast Service) as defined 
   in the Layer 2 Virtual Private Network Working Group.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-04.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:49:01 +0800

hi,authors
i review this draft today. i have a few question for section 3.2 P2MP 
SS-PW Underlying Layer .
in the section, there is the following paragraph context:
"   As an example an existing P2MP LSP may attach 
   more leaves than the ones defined as Leaf PEs for a given P2MP PW. It 
   may be interesting to reuse it to minimize new configuration, but 
   using this P2MP LSP would imply non-Leaf PEs receive unwanted 
   traffic, not destined to Leaf PE at the service layer"

         Q1: how do non-leaf PEs identify which traffic is unwanted 
traffic by a common p2mp LSP?
          do they only be based on pw label to judge the traffic? if so, 
maybe the value of the pw label have already been assigned for another 
wanted traffic,
           how do the non-leafs PEs identify which traffic is unwanted or 
wanted traffic for itself?
         Q2: if non-leaf PEs know this traffic is unwanted traffic , do 
they directly abandon these traffic? i think it necessary to clarify it in 
this draft.

thank you!

B.R.
liu

[email-masked] 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2011-07-09 05:30

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送
[email-masked]
主题
[PWE3] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-04.txt

A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working 
Group of the IETF.

    Title         : Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint 
Pseudowire
    Author(s)     : G. Heron, et al
    Filename      : draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-04.txt
    Pages         : 21
    Date          : 2011-07-08

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
ftp://[email-masked]/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-04.txt
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

---

From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:31:05 +0100

Hi Liu,

1) In the case of a non-leaf PE it would receive traffic on the P2MP LSP but
wouldn't have a valid PW label to demultiplex the traffic.  In the P2MP LSP
case the PW label is valid within the context of the P2MP LSP so the
non-leaf PE won't have the label assigned for other traffic.

2) Yes the non-leaf PE would just discard the unwanted traffic.

But sure, might be worth clarifying this in the draft...

Giles

> 发件人:  [email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-04.tx>
t
> ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is
> solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is
> confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are
> not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
> you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the
> message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
> sender.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 09:05:08 +0800

hi,Giles
i'm very thankful to  you for answering the questions. 
according to my understanding, for all leaf nodes of the p2mp LSP,
they must be based on both P2MP LSP label and PW label to identify 
whether the traffic is their wanted or unwanted traffic.
it can't identify the traffic is their wanted traffic only based on
pw label.
is my understanding false? 
in addtion, In my mind, it is better to clarify this section part 
furtherly clearly.

B.R.
liu

Giles Heron <[email-masked]> 
2011-07-15 23:31

收件人
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
抄送

主题
Re: [PWE3] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-04.txt

Hi Liu,

1) In the case of a non-leaf PE it would receive traffic on the P2MP LSP 
but
wouldn't have a valid PW label to demultiplex the traffic.  In the P2MP 
LSP
case the PW label is valid within the context of the P2MP LSP so the
non-leaf PE won't have the label assigned for other traffic.

Giles

> 发件人:  [email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-04.tx
t
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
ftp://[email-masked]/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requireme

> nts-04.txt