Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 VCCV breakout meeting

From: Sasha Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:47:34 +0300

Stewart and all,
Just a couple of minor comments as of this moment...

Regards,
                     Sasha

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant
To: pwe3
[Sasha] Should we not also send it to L2TPEXT WG? At least one
item in the proposed resolution directly affects their WG item
(draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-01.txt)...

Sent: 8/3/2005 3:02 PM
Subject: [PWE3] PWE3 VCCV breakout meeting

These are the minutes of the PWE3 VCCV breakout meeting
that took place at lunch time today.

Corrections from those present and comments from the
list on the proposed resolution are sought.

There were a number of other issues that were raised
at these meeting that were out of scope. Those
issues should be raised on the PWE3 list.

- Stewart

VCCV over IP/RTP Breakout Mtg 3 Aug 2005 @ 1240
===============================================

Present:

Stewart Bryant (Chair)
Bill Stor
Luca martini
Maria Alice
Matthew Bocci
Ron Cohen
Sasha Vainshtein
Scot Weiner
Skip Booth (By Phone)
Tim Frost
Tom Nadeau
Yaakov Stein

Proposals on the Table at Start of Meeting
==========================================

- never include RTP in VCCV
- use ACH
- note that RTP header always starts with 8
etc

or

change order of headers

Discussion
==========

Issue of need to interconnect ip & mpls PWs

Two cases what to do with L2TP and what to do
with UDP/IP

Could change L2TPv3 encap, but UDP problem
remains.

Proposal fix L2TP to be like MPLS and leave
UDP and live with the problems.

UDP has no signalling and is unlikely to be
used for stitching/switching.

Note needs to be added to switching draft
to say that UDP switching to MPLS/L2TP
currently out of scope.

Need to fix statement in VCCV saying that
sub-layer is REQUIRED.
[Sasha] I'd say to relax the MUST requirement...

Issue there is one implementation that uses
RTP then CW over L2TP. Needs backwards
compatibility mode.

Proposed Resolution for RTP and CW order for TDM PWs
====================================================

1) L2TP will use MPLS header ordering (i.e. L2TPv3/CW/RTP)

2) VCCV mux will use ACH
[Sasha] and will NOT use RTP even if the data packets include it

3) Main text will describe use of MPLS order.

4) Informational Appendix describing old mode RTP/CW order
    in TDM drafts that are affected.

5) Need new option in RTP AVP for new (MPLS) order IN L2TP
[Sasha] The RTP AVP is described in the above-mentionedWG item
of the L2TPEXT WG.

6) Change to VCCV draft to describe the above

7) Need to update TDMoIP, CESoPSN, SATOP to reflect the
    above.

8) SONET draft not affected.

9 In UDP/IP PWs VCCV will not use RTP - RTP header
   will be skipped by noting first nibble = 8.
[Sasha] As said above, VCCV shall not ever use RTP.
And,IMO, what we need is the way toidentify VCCV packets (which we
do by checking that the first nibble is '0001') and not to identify
RTP (allthat isimportant is that it is always different).

Sasha noted that he needed to discuss the proposal with
his development team. Others present indicated support
for the proposal.

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

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