Subject: RE: draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

From: "Nurit Sprecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:51:58 +0200

Hi Davie,
The requirement draft has just been accepted as a WG document. That is
the requirements as stated right now (together with the remarks that
were given) in the draft are acceptable. There are requirements for TE
services (emulated by MS-PWs). The S-PEs should have the information
when selecting an appropriate TE Tunnel for the service.  The most
natural and appropriate existing protocol to signal the required
information is the RSVP-TE protocol (assuming that this is the chosen
protocol for TE). There is very little to add to the RSVP-TE in order to
support the signaling of PWs - the PW ID/type and the control word.
Neither the LDP nor the L2TP is appropriate to signal the required
information for TE services. They both should be extended to contain the
required information (e.g. explicit route, QoS parameters,
Diffserv/Diffserv-TE information, Traffic priorities, resource
affinities, requirements for resiliency, etc.). 
In addition, the TE PWs would probably transmit TE Tunnels. TE Tunnels
are signaled using the RSVP-TE protocol. In case of TE only, why should
we maintain and manage two different protocols?
I think that this draft is aligned with the requirement draft and it
should be a WG Document and progress following the requirement draft
(which is already accepted as WG). 
Nurit.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Bruce Davie
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

I don't think it's helpful for the WG to propose another protocol for PW

signalling before it has even finished standardizing the first one.
Maybe 
when we have some consensus on the requirements for multi-segment PWs
we'll 
decide that we need something beyond LDP and L2TPv3, but we're not at
that 
point yet. So, at this time I oppose making this a WG draft.

Bruce

--On Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:31 AM +0000 Stewart Bryant 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> At IETF62 the authors of
>
> Setup and Maintenance of Pseudowires using RSVP-TE
> ftp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt
>
> asked for the draft to become a WG draft.
>
> What is the view of members of the PWE3 WG?
>
> Stewart
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

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