Subject: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with draft-pw-redundancy-bit

From: "Daniel Cohn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:38:18 +0200

Hi draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp authors and list at large,

Is there a reason why the ICCP draft does not explicit reference the pw
redundancy draft? It does mention active/standby signaling for the PWs,
so implicitly it seems to assume that the other endpoint is implementing
draft-pw-redundancy-bit, but in that case some details are missing such
as which pw redundancy mode should be used (e.g. master/slave), how PW
precedence should be configured, etc.

Is this something you plan to add in future revisions?

Thanks,

Daniel

---

From: Samer Salam <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:25:56 -0800

Hi Daniel,

The ICCP draft does assume the use of the pw-redundancy-bit draft. Section
9.1.3 describes two modes of operation (depending on configuration):

- When an external AC redundancy mechanism is in use, and is being
synchronized among the PEs via ICCP. In this mode, PW state is not
synchronized via ICCP and the Independent Mode of operation is used for PW
state signaling. This guarantees that the AC and PW states are always in
sync for a given PE (to avoid deadlock).

- When an external AC redundancy mechanism is not in use, then PW state is
synchronized via ICCP. In this mode, either the Independent mode or the
Master/Slave mode could be used for PW state signaling.

We will add clarifications to that effect in a future revision.

Regards,
Samer

On 12-03-15 4:38 AM, "Daniel Cohn" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> redundancy draft? It does mention active/standby signaling for the PWs, so
> implicitly it seems to assume that the other endpoint is implementing
> draft-pw-redundancy-bit, but in that case some details are missing such as
> which pw redundancy mode should be used (e.g. master/slave), how PW precedence
> should be configured, etc.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:28:15 -0400

We should probably also add a reference to the redundancy bit draft as well.

	--Tom

On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Samer Salam wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
> 
> The ICCP draft does assume the use of the pw-redundancy-bit draft. Section 9.1.3 describes two modes of operation (depending on configuration):
> 
> - When an external AC redundancy mechanism is in use, and is being synchronized among the PEs via ICCP. In this mode, PW state is not synchronized via ICCP and the Independent Mode of operation is used for PW state signaling. This guarantees that the AC and PW states are always in sync for a given PE (to avoid deadlock).
> 
> - When an external AC redundancy mechanism is not in use, then PW state is synchronized via ICCP. In this mode, either the Independent mode or the Master/Slave mode could be used for PW state signaling.
> 
>> Is there a reason why the ICCP draft does not explicit reference the pw redundancy draft? It does mention active/standby signaling for the PWs, so implicitly it seems to assume that the other endpoint is implementing draft-pw-redundancy-bit, but in that case some details are missing such as which pw redundancy mode should be used (e.g. master/slave), how PW precedence should be configured, etc.
>>