Subject: Re: Arch sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:38:57 +0100

I cut and paste from the wrong version of the base document
the current version is actually:

+---------------------+
|      Payload        |
/=====================\\
H Payload Convergence H-----+
H---------------------H     |
H       Timing        H------------------------+
H---------------------H     |                  |
H     Sequencing      H-----|                  |
\\=====================/     |                  |
|  PW Demultiplexer   |---+ |                  v
+---------------------+   | |  +--------------------------------+
|  PSN Convergence    |-----|  .                                .
+---------------------+   | |  .              RTP               .
|        PSN          |-+ | |  |                                |
+---------------------+ | | |  +--------------------------------+
|      Data-link      | | | +->| Flags, Frag, Len, Seq #, etc   |
+---------------------+ | |    +--------------------------------+
|       Physical      | | |    |    MPLS Payl'd Type Indent     |
+---------------------+ | |    +--------------------------------+
                         | +--->|           PW Label             |
                         |      +--------------------------------+
                         +----->| Outer Label or MPLS-in-IP encap|
                                +--------------------------------+

but the question remains, should we swap RTP and the CW?

Stewart

Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> Is the WG concensus:
> 
>   +---------------------+
>   |      Payload        |
>   /=====================\
>   H Payload Convergence H-----+
>   H---------------------H     |
>   H       Timing        H------------------------+
>   H---------------------H     |                  |
>   H     Sequencing      H-----|                  |
>   \=====================/     |                  |
>   |  PW Demultiplexer   |---+ |                  v
>   +---------------------+   | |  +--------------------------------+
>   |  PSN Convergence    |-----|  .                                .
>   +---------------------+   | |  .              RTP               .
>   |        PSN          |-+ | |  |                                |
>   +---------------------+ | | |  +--------------------------------+
>   |    MAC/Data-link    | | | +->| Flags, Frag, Len, Seq #, etc   |
>   +---------------------+ | |    +--------------------------------+
>   |       Physical      | | +--->|           PW Label             |
>   +---------------------+ |      +--------------------------------+
>                           +----->| Outer Label or MPLS-in-IP encap|
>                                  +--------------------------------+
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 11: PWE3 over an MPLS PSN using a control word
> 
> Which is what the current text says, or is it:
> 
>   +---------------------+
>   |      Payload        |
>   /=====================\
>   H Payload Convergence H-----+
>   H---------------------H     |
>   H       Timing        H-------+
>   H---------------------H     | |
>   H     Sequencing      H-----+ |
>   \=====================/     | |
>   |  PW Demultiplexer   |---+ | |
>   +---------------------+   | | |  +--------------------------------+
>   |  PSN Convergence    |-----+--->| Flags, Frag, Len, Seq #, etc   |
>   +---------------------+   |   |  +--------------------------------+
>   |        PSN          |-+ |   |  |                                |
>   +---------------------+ | |   +->.              RTP               .
>   |    MAC/Data-link    | | |      |                                |
>   +---------------------+ | |      +--------------------------------+
>   |       Physical      | | +----->|           PW Label             |
>   +---------------------+ |        +--------------------------------+
>                           +------->| Outer Label or MPLS-in-IP encap|
>                                    +--------------------------------+
> 
> Figure 11: PWE3 over an MPLS PSN using a control word
> 
> 
> Which is what this thread seems to conclude?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Cohen wrote:
> 
>> Yaakov,
>>
>> Let me try again.
>>
>> In order to run RTP over an MPLS core, one can run:
>>
>> MPLS->VC-label->RTP->CW->Data
>>
>> And if IP flow identification is required (ECMP and the like) one would
>> use:
>>
>> MPLS->VC-label->MPLS PID->RTP->CW->Data.
>>
>> Hope this helps
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
>>> Yaakov Stein
>>> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 5:17 PM
>>> To: Alik Shimelmits; Ron Cohen; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>>> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Arch sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>> From what Alik and Ron have said,
>>>
>>> RTP should ONLY be used with UDP,
>>> and NOT with MPLS.
>>>
>>> If this is indeed the case, then its use contradicts the goal
>>> of PWs being PSN-agnostic.
>>>
>>> As I remember it, the architecture draft
>>> specifically depicts RTP for the MPLS case.
>>>
>>> More importantly, if RTP is actually needed for the IP case (e.g. for 
>>> carrying TDM or other RT traffic)
>>> why does the need disappear for MPLS?
>>>
>>>
>>> Y(J)S
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>> [email-masked]
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:31:39 +0100

Is the WG concensus:

   +---------------------+
   |      Payload        |
   /=====================\

   +---------------------+
   |      Payload        |
   /=====================\

Thanks

Stewart

Ron Cohen wrote:
>>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
>>Behalf Of Yaakov Stein
>>More importantly, if RTP is actually needed 
>>for the IP case (e.g. for carrying TDM or other RT traffic)

---

From: "Ron Cohen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:55:34 +0200

Stewart,

In ASCII Art the layering should look like:

  +---------------------+
  |      Payload        |
  /=====================\
  H Payload Convergence H-------+
  H---------------------H       |
  H       Timing        H---------+
  H---------------------H       | |
  H     Sequencing      H-------+ |
  \=====================/       | |
  |  PSN Convergence    |-----+ | |
  +---------------------+     | | |  +--------------------------------+
  |  PW Demultiplexer   |---+ | +--->| Flags, Frag, Len, Seq #, etc   |
  +---------------------+   | |   |  +--------------------------------+
  |        PSN          |-+ | |   +->|            RTP                 |
  +---------------------+ | | |      +--------------------------------+
  |    MAC/Data-link    | | | +----->|           MPLS PID             |
  +---------------------+ | |        +--------------------------------+
  |       Physical      | | +------->|           PW Label             |
  +---------------------+ |          +--------------------------------+
                          +--------->| Outer Label or MPLS-in-IP encap|
                                     +--------------------------------+

And similar for IP.

Ron

> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 1:32 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Ron Cohen; 'Yaakov Stein'; 'Alik Shimelmits'
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Arch sections 5.4.3 and 5.4.4
> 
> 
> 
> Is the WG concensus:
> 
>    +---------------------+
>    |      Payload        |
>    /=====================\
> >>for the IP case (e.g. for carrying TDM or other RT traffic) why does

> >>the need disappear for MPLS?
> >>
> >>
> >>Y(J)S

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 05:52:38 -0400

Ron's got it perfect.

Cheers,
Andy

-------