Subject: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-01.txt

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:33:12 +0100

I just submitted draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-01.txt

This addresses the comments that we received during last call.
There are a couple of areas that still need work, but I thought that it
was appropriate to share it with the WGs at this stage to gather feedback
on how well it addresses the concerns raised at the LC.

The areas that I think need work are:

1) The references to BFD, which is waiting on a draft by Tom and Carlos
to describe running BFD over VCCV

2) The description of OAM  on the MPLS  PSN. We should say something
in the control plane present case. Do we need to say anything more
in the externally configured case.

There will be another version before the authors ask for a second WG LC,
meanwhile any review comments on the rest of the text will allow us
to move forward a little faster.

Regards

Stewart

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:47:00 -0400

Stewart,

Did you include any reference to our plans to produce a more general MPLS PW approach in the future, to remove the reliance on physical Ethernet ports and the Ethernet header in the data path?

Thanks,
Andy

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:54:06 +0100

> Did you include any reference to our plans to produce a more general MPLS PW approach in the future, to remove the reliance on physical Ethernet ports and the Ethernet header in the data path?

Here is an extract from the introduction.

The operator community has identified the need for the transparent
carriage of the MPLS network of one party over the MPLS network of
another party.  This document describes one IETF-recommended
mechanism to satisfy this requirement using the existing RFC4448
[RFC4448] PWE3 Ethernet pseudowire standard.  The mechanism described
here fulfills the requirements liaised to the IETF PWE3 working group
by the ITU: - [1]and [2].

The key purpose of this document is to demonstrate that there is an
existing IETF-recommended mechanism that satisfies the requirements
posed by the operator community.  It is recognised that it is
possible to design a more efficient method of satisfying the
requirement, and the IETF anticipates that improved solutions will be
proposed in the future.

If anyone knows how to do an electronic post I will do so the draft  can 
be seen today (pls unicast).

Stewart

---

From: "Sasha Vainshtein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:45:01 +0300

Stewart and all,
I've started reading the draft and I've found what looks like a broken
reference: [I-D.draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-bfd].
This reference was presumed to explain how BFD can be used for detection
mis-connections in PWs.
This looked strange to me since AFAIK the basic BFD does not provide
such capabilities. 

I've found that neither the standard IETF I-D archive
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/ind/N/)  nor the 
Watersprings one (http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/index-n.html)
mention a suitable draft. 
And nothing suitable appears in the References section of
draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-01either.

Please note also that the latest VCCV draft
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-14.txt) 
does not define the ability to carry BFD in VCCV. The only two protocols
that can be advertised using the 
VCCV Capability TLV are ICMP Ping and LSP Ping. Hence the discussion of
presence or absence of 
IP headers in BFD-in-VCCV (in Section 3.1 and 3.2) looks somewhat
premature to me.

Since PWE3 OAM has been mentioned as one of the important arguments for
using the PWE3-like demarcation 
during the discussion of the previous version of this draft,
clarification of the OAM-related issues looks important to me.

Regards,
                  Sasha

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:54 PM
To: Andrew G. Malis
Cc: [email-masked]; pwe3
Subject: [mpls] Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-01.txt

Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Stewart,
>
> Did you include any reference to our plans to produce a more general
MPLS PW approach in the future, to remove the reliance on physical
Ethernet ports and the Ethernet header in the data path?

The operator community has identified the need for the transparent
carriage of the MPLS network of one party over the MPLS network of
another party.  This document describes one IETF-recommended mechanism
to satisfy this requirement using the existing RFC4448 [RFC4448] PWE3
Ethernet pseudowire standard.  The mechanism described here fulfills the
requirements liaised to the IETF PWE3 working group by the ITU: - [1]and
[2].

The key purpose of this document is to demonstrate that there is an
existing IETF-recommended mechanism that satisfies the requirements
posed by the operator community.  It is recognised that it is possible
to design a more efficient method of satisfying the requirement, and the
IETF anticipates that improved solutions will be proposed in the future.

Stewart

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:16:03 -0400

> This looked strange to me since AFAIK the basic BFD does not provide
	
	This is a reference to a new draft that Carlos and I
are putting together right now that is basically just the BFD
bits that were removed from vccv in draft-14. Nothing new,
no surprises there. Just take a look at what is in VCCV
prior to -14 and you should have the info.

	--Tom

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:56:18 +0100

Sasha

The broken reference is a place holder for when Tom and Carlos submit the
draft that explains how to run BFD over VCCV. This material was taken
out of the main VCCV draft to address AD comments that it's inclusion made
the main VCCV draft was too confusing.

Tom and Carlos should have the BFD over VCCV draft out shortly and I will
then clean up the reference.

Sorry for the confusion.

Stewart

---

From: "Sasha Vainshtein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:56:09 +0300

Stewart, Tom and all,
Thank you for a prompt response. I will be waiting for the forthcoming draft.
Regards,
                Sasha

________________________________

From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 11-Sep-07 03:56
To: Sasha Vainshtein
Cc: pwe3
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-transport-01.txt

Sasha

Sorry for the confusion.

Stewart