Subject: [PWE3] L2TPEXT review of L2TPv3 extensions in draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-15

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:14:41 -0600

L2TPEXT WG,
he IESG as asked that you review the proposed L2TPv3 extensions 
documented in draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-14.

These extensions are documented in section 8.

Please advise us if you have any objections to the proposed additions.

Thanks.
Luca Martini
on behalf of pwe3 WG.

---

From: Carlos Pignataro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:41:30 -0400

L2tpext WG,

I would like to ask for two or three volunteers to review the L2TPv3
extensions defined in this document, mostly localized in Sections 8 and
14. Rev -15 just posted, but it does not appear to have L2TPv3 relevant
changes. Please volunteer and reply to [email-masked] if
you are willing. Thanks in advance !

Luca, PWE3,

Many Thanks for asking !

Please note that there was an early review by Matthew Bocci and myself
that you requested of the I-D rev draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-10, at
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10236.html>. It
appears that there are comments including in Section 8 (and in
particular in Section 8.4.1 onwards) that seem to not have been
addressed (as per list archive thread or diff with new I-D rev).

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

On 6/3/2010 6:14 PM, Luca Martini wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> L2tpext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>

---

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 22:05:14 -0600

> addressed (as per list archive thread or diff with new I-D rev).
Yes these should have been incorporated early on. I had received
comments from you , but somehow I missed this particular list.
Note that some of these problems are related to L2TPv3 specific
encapsulations, and are not specifically treated in the segmented-PW
document. Let me process the comments in an email, and we'll work to
find a solution.
Thanks!
Luca

---

From: Carlos Pignataro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:23:13 -0400

We received three responses volunteering to review the document for
L2TPext: Prashant Jhingran, Sam Aldrin, and Neil McGill in Cc.

The current version is at
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-15>. Please
send your comments and Acks/Nacks to [email-masked], Cc to [email-masked].

Thanks,

-- Carlos, on behalf of L2TPext.

On 6/3/2010 6:14 PM, Luca Martini wrote:
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>

---

From: Neil McGill <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 15:23:26 -0400 (GMT)

Acked, but it would be good to have at least a note that the LDP PW status 
TLV should be mapped to the L2TPv3 Extended Circuit Status Values TLV at 
switching points.  The mappings themselves are obvious enough.

The v3 TLV is specified in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5641

Thanks,

Neil.

---

From: Sam Aldrin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:59:47 -0700

Carlos and Luca,

Here are few comments specific to L2TPv3 extensions.

cheers
-sam

1. Sec 8.4.1 - Is 'MH-PW' a  typo? Should it be MS-PW?

2. Sec 8.7.1 - i - It says the upper nibble is always zero. Is it true  
even in the case of VCCV? Is it saying that, there can never be a CW  
with non-zero? OR will there be no mapping if it is non-zero? Can this  
be clarified?

3. Sec 9.3: In the case of MS-PW of this topology

TPE1------------------------SPE1-----------------------TPE2
          (LDP)                                   (L2TPv3)

Does SPE1 advertises cc type 1 at all?
If not, is it the same case when both the segments are statically  
signaled and statically stitched?
If yes, when vccv LSP ping packet sent with CW and ttl = 255, does it  
gets switched onto L2TPv3 segment?

4. The OAM section is entirely for the MS-PW toplogy of MPLS signaled  
PW segments. Shouldn't there be a section which clarifies the OAM  
behavior in the case of MS-PW with MPLS and L2TPv3 signaled segments  
stitched together?

5. In Sec 8.6, the SP-TLV is exchanged/translated between MPLS  
signaled and L2TPv3 signaled segments. If this is true, have questions  
in the following topology

TPE1------------------------SPE1-----------------------TPE2
          (LDP)                                   (L2TPv3)

a) Will the Segment-TLV list on TPE1 contain info about L2TPv3 segment  
as well?
b) If the LSP ping packet is sent as type3 VCCV and no CW, how does  
SPE1 punt the packet without forwarding the packet onto non-MPLS  
signaled segment?

---

From: "Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:21:54 +0530

Hi Carlos and Luca,

Couple of more from my side...rest looks fine to me.

=> Section 8.5 related to MTU:
There may be scenarios where MTU values of MS-PW may differ and this may
result in pkt fragmentation on S-PE. Can this be avoided ? at least in
case of 8.4 viz. Dynamic LDP/MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs.  

=> pertaining is misspelled as pertining 
"A more detailed discussion of the requirements pertining to MS-PWs can
be found in [RFC5254]." 

Regards,
Prashant Jhingran

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Aldrin (aldrin) 
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: Luca Martini (lmartini); PWE3 WG (E-mail); [email-masked];
Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra); Neil McGill (nmcgill)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] L2TPEXT review of L2TPv3 extensions in
draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-15

Carlos and Luca,

cheers
-sam

4. The OAM section is entirely for the MS-PW toplogy of MPLS signaled PW
segments. Shouldn't there be a section which clarifies the OAM behavior
in the case of MS-PW with MPLS and L2TPv3 signaled segments stitched
together?

5. In Sec 8.6, the SP-TLV is exchanged/translated between MPLS signaled
and L2TPv3 signaled segments. If this is true, have questions in the
following topology

On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Carlos Pignataro wrote:

> send your comments and Acks/Nacks to [email-masked], Cc to 
> [email-masked] .
>
> Thanks,
>

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:37:57 -0500

Thank you, Prashant, Sam, and Neil.

Luca, that's all the reviews from L2tpext.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

-----Original Message-----
From: Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra) 
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 12:52 PM
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Luca Martini (lmartini)
Cc: Luca Martini (lmartini); PWE3 WG (E-mail); [email-masked]; Neil
McGill (nmcgill); Sam Aldrin (aldrin)
Subject: RE: [PWE3] L2TPEXT review of L2TPv3 extensions in
draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-15

Hi Carlos and Luca,

 
Regards,
Prashant Jhingran

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Aldrin (aldrin) 
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: Luca Martini (lmartini); PWE3 WG (E-mail); [email-masked];

Carlos and Luca,

cheers
-sam