Subject: RE: [PWE3] Draft Vancouver Minutes

From: "Ronen Solomon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:51:42 +0200

draft-roth-pwe3-fc-encap-01.txt includeds the applicability statement
with respect to the PSN , with enhanced focus on the traffic engineering
aspects,  specifies (section 2.3) 

 2.3. 
Traffic Engineering  
                      
                  The transport of FC frames over a PSN network requires
the operator 
                  not only to optimize the use of bandwidth resources,
but also to 
                  define an explicit path over which availability and
performance can 
                  be guaranteed. This capability is offered by other
interconnect 
                  technologies such as ATM or SONET transport network
technologies. 
                   
                  FC/MPLS defines the mapping of FC frames into an MPLS
PW, implicitly 
                  assuming the use of MPLS-TE for the explicit
provisioning of an FC PW     

                  over the MPLS-based PSN. This enables the operator to
guarantee the 
                  performance and availability of the emulated FC link.

                  FC requires a reliable transmission mechanism between
FC entities.  
                  This implicitly assumes a lossless media with high
availability and 
                  low packet loss. This, however, cannot always be
guaranteed in best 
                  effort networks where FC frames are at times
transported over sub-
                  optimal paths. Bearing this in mind, FC/MPLS relies on
MPLS-TE to 
                  create an emulated FC link over a packet-oriented
transport network, 
                  effectively enabling network operators to establish an
explicit path 
                  over which reliable frame forwarding can be
guaranteed.  

--Ronen

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Draft Vancouver Minutes

[email-masked] wrote:

>A couple of comments on the Fibre Channel draft portion of the minutes:
>
>- Change all instances of "T.11" to "T11".
>- "David Black: there is now consistent congestion control for fiber 
>channel."
>	--> there is no RFC2581-class (TCP-class) congestion control in
Fibre
>	Channel, hence leaving congestion control to the NSP (i.e.,
Fibre
>	Channel) will not be acceptable (to the Transport Area) in all
cases.
>Thanks,
>--David

The important part of the discussion was that the applicability
statement would have to be carefully written, particularly with respect
to the expectations on the PSN.

I can see FCPW working fine over an RSVP-TE PWN path, but running over
the public Internet would be somewhat unlikely.

- 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

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:02:14 +0000

That should be fine. Sorry we missed it.

- Stewart