Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-03.txt

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:12:21 -0400

Peter> "there MUST  be a mechanism  for an operator  to find out  the actual
Peter> path  of the  packets  carrying the  PW and  the  path of  the PW  as
Peter> determined by the control plane"

I think that's too  strong, as it is not clear that  this requirement can be
met in any feasible manner.

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:36:16 -0400

>met in any feasible manner.

         Let me suggest the text:

         A connection verification mechanism should be supported by
PWs.  Connection verification as well as other alarming mechanisms
can alert the operator that a PW has lost its remote connection.
It is sometimes desirable to know the exact functional path of a PW
for  troubleshooting purposes, thus a traceroute function capable
of reporting the path taken by data packets over the PW should be
provided.

         I also suggest that we change the heading "Pseudo-Wire Traceroute"
to "Pseudo-Wire Connection Verification and Traceroute"

         --Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 19:01:42 +0100

> to "Pseudo-Wire Connection Verification and Traceroute"

I like this text and heading.

Stewart

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:07:05 -0700

Once a packet belonging to a PW is handed to a tunnel, it becomes the
responsibility of the tunnel to get it to the VC endpoint.  Now, a tunnel may
not be nailed down (e.g., GRE).  So it is possible that the "actual path of the
packets" is variable.  So I would say that finding the actual path of the
packets itself can't be a MUST.

On the other hand, can we say that there MUST be a mechanism for determining the
path a packet takes?  To a large extent, it depends on what the tunnel itself is
that carries the PW's packets.  Is there a traceroute for every tunnel type?

For p2p PWs:
GRE -> traceroute
MPLS -> lsp-ping's traceroute
L2TP -> traceroute (but not good enough)
L2TPv3 (aka UTI) -> traceroute (but not good enough)

For hierarchical VPLS, there's a traceroute that hops across the PWs that are
stitched together to determine the path.  The tunnels for the individual PWs
also can be tracerouted as in the p2p PWs.

So except for being unable to foresee what other tunnel types may exist (which
may not have traceroute capability), and that the dependence on the tunnel
having a traceroute capability may be out of scope for PWE3, what is the problem
with saying MUST?

-Vach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Eric
> Rosen
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:12 AM
> To: Peter Willis
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-03.txt
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3