Subject: RE: Submission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM emulation

From: "Daniel Feldman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:05:34 +0200

Gentleman: well done!
	This is indeed a breakthrough. My only question is the
following:
In section 4.3.1 you say: 
"Payload of a single UCESoPSN packet SHOULD contain one or more native 
circuit frames"

and later:

"In addition to the "native circuit frame" mode, the packet payload size

MAY be an integer multiple of 47, without regard to the native circuit 
frame."

	Since there is no SHALL written, what happens if an
implementation (for example, an Axerra one) decides to go for natives
frames, while another (for example, a RAD one) decides to go for
multiple of 47 bytes. What happens to interworking!?!?!

	Thanks in advance,
		Daniel Feldman

-----Original Message-----
From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:09 PM
To: PWE3 WG (E-mail)
Cc: Danny McPherson (E-mail); Ron Cohen (E-mail); Sim Narasimha
(E-mail); Stephen Casner (E-mail); Stewart Bryant (E-mail); Tom K.
Johnson (E-mail); 'Riegel Maximilian' (E-mail 2); Yaron Raz (E-mail);
Ashwin Moranganti (E-mail); Mark Townsley (E-mail); Andrew G. Malis
(E-mail); Shahram Davari (E-mail)
Subject: [PWE3] Sumbission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM
emulation

Dear colleagues,

Discussions on emulation of TDM circuits that took 
place during and after the Yokohama meeting have 
shown that emulation of unstructured circuits 
is by far a less contentious issue when compared 
to that of "structured" ones (n*DS0) while 
being of sufficient interest to many of the WG
participants.

This understanding triggered an effort to provide
a (hopefully!) non-controversial specification  
for encapsulating unstructured E1, T1, E3 and T3 
circuits as pseudo-wires. The resulting document, 
edited by Yaakov Stein (RAD) and myself, has been just 
sent for posting at the IETF Web site as a NEW draft.

While it is  processed by the Internet Drafts Editor, 
you can access it at the following location:

ftp://ftp.axerra.com/sasha/draft-vainshtein-pwe3-ucesopsn-00.txt

Your feedback will be highly appreciated.
  
With best regards,
                                   Sasha Vainshtein
email:     [email-masked]
tel:       +972-3-7659993 (office)
           +972-8-9254948 (res.)
           +972-58-674833 (cell.)
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.406 / Virus Database: 229 - Release Date: 10/21/2002

---

From: "Bob Barrett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:40:54 -0000

RE: [PWE3] Submission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM
emulationMight be advisable to define max size (min size equals one by
default, and not very useful).

I guess max size within pwe3 is a function of bearer PDU max size, so may be
its irrelevant.

Bob
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Shahram
Davari
  Sent: 25 October 2002 15:50
  To: PWE3 WG (E-mail)
  Cc: 'Daniel Feldman'
  Subject: RE: [PWE3] Submission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM
emulation

  Daniel,

  I was about to make the same comment. Fixing the size of the payload to
some specific values seems implementation dependent. In theory, the
unstructured mode should work with any payload size, because no frame or
structure boundary is required to be recognized.

  My suggestion is to not determine the payload size in the draft and just
mention that both sides must agree (or be configured) on the payload size to
be used.

  Yours,
  -Shahram
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Daniel Feldman [mailto:[email-masked]]
    Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:06 PM
    To: Sasha Vainshtein; PWE3 WG (E-mail)
    Cc: Danny McPherson (E-mail); Ron Cohen (E-mail); Sim Narasimha
(E-mail); Stephen Casner (E-mail); Stewart Bryant (E-mail); Tom K. Johnson
(E-mail); 'Riegel Maximilian' (E-mail 2); Yaron Raz (E-mail); Ashwin
Moranganti (E-mail); Mark Townsley (E-mail); Andrew G. Malis (E-mail);
Shahram Davari; Alex Trigub; Alex Feldman
    Subject: RE: [PWE3] Submission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM
emulation

            Gentleman: well done!

    and later:

            Since there is no SHALL written, what happens if an
implementation (for example, an Axerra one) decides to go for natives
frames, while another (for example, a RAD one) decides to go for multiple of
47 bytes. What happens to interworking!?!?!

            Thanks in advance,
                    Daniel Feldman

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:[email-masked]]
    Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:09 PM
    To: PWE3 WG (E-mail)
    Cc: Danny McPherson (E-mail); Ron Cohen (E-mail); Sim Narasimha
    (E-mail); Stephen Casner (E-mail); Stewart Bryant (E-mail); Tom K.
    Johnson (E-mail); 'Riegel Maximilian' (E-mail 2); Yaron Raz (E-mail);
    Ashwin Moranganti (E-mail); Mark Townsley (E-mail); Andrew G. Malis
    (E-mail); Shahram Davari (E-mail)
    Subject: [PWE3] Sumbission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM
    emulation

    Dear colleagues,

    With best regards,
                                       Sasha Vainshtein
    email:     [email-masked]

    ---

---

From: "Daniel Feldman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:59:58 +0200

Hello all,
    I agree with Shahram's proposal, to have the payload size negotiated.
We can think about stipulating also a default value which all
implementations SHALL support.
    This is the only way to ensure interworking.
    Regards,
        Daniel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shahram Davari [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 4:50 PM
To: PWE3 WG (E-mail)
Cc: Daniel Feldman
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Submission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM
emulation

Daniel,

My suggestion is to not determine the payload size in the draft and just
mention that both sides must agree (or be configured) on the payload size
to be used.

Yours,
-Shahram

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Feldman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:06 PM
To: Sasha Vainshtein; PWE3 WG (E-mail)
Cc: Danny McPherson (E-mail); Ron Cohen (E-mail); Sim Narasimha (E-mail);
Stephen Casner (E-mail); Stewart Bryant (E-mail); Tom K. Johnson (E-mail);
'Riegel Maximilian' (E-mail 2); Yaron Raz (E-mail); Ashwin Moranganti
(E-mail); Mark Townsley (E-mail); Andrew G. Malis (E-mail); Shahram
Davari; Alex Trigub; Alex Feldman
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Submission of an internet draft for unstructured TDM
emulation

        Gentleman: well done!
        This is indeed a breakthrough. My only question is the following:
In section 4.3.1 you say:
"Payload of a single UCESoPSN packet SHOULD contain one or more native
circuit frames"

and later:

        Since there is no SHALL written, what happens if an implementation
(for example, an Axerra one) decides to go for natives frames, while
another (for example, a RAD one) decides to go for multiple of 47 bytes.
What happens to interworking!?!?!

        Thanks in advance,
                Daniel Feldman

-----Original Message-----
From: Sasha Vainshtein [ mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:09 PM
To: PWE3 WG (E-mail)
Cc: Danny McPherson (E-mail); Ron Cohen (E-mail); Sim Narasimha

Dear colleagues,

With best regards,
                                   Sasha Vainshtein
email:     [email-masked]

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.406 / Virus Database: 229 - Release Date: 10/21/2002

---