Subject: RE: [PWE3] Generic PW - Is there a need? - some more stuff also

From: "Shah, Himanshu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:33:38 -0500

I think we should also consider PW over bundled transport LSPs
as new work item. Current specs do not explicitely prohibit
it. However, for example, enabling 1G PW over 10 100MB TE-transport 
LSPs has obviously some PW implications that we should consider in WG.

/himanshu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 4:07 PM
> To: Danny McPherson; pwe3 pwe3
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Generic PW - Is there a need?
> 
> 
> 
> I support this work if it is done within the scope (and for
> applications) mentioned below.
> 
> -Ali 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> > Behalf Of Danny McPherson
> > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:51 AM
> > To: pwe3 pwe3
> > Subject: [PWE3] Generic PW - Is there a need?
> > 
> > 
> > Folks,
> > We would like to start a discussion on whether the PWE3 WG 
> > should work on the definition of a generic packet PW.
> > 
> > The driver for this work is threefold:
> > 
> > 1) The need for a PW to support the IPLS work in the L2VPN WG
> > 
> > 2) The need to provide an MPLS PW to satisfy the same need as 
> > the IP PW proposed in the L2TPext WG
> > 
> > 3) The need to provide PW to transport MPLS PWs
> > 
> > This type of PW is generally needed where it is required to 
> > interconnect ACs with two (actually or potentially) disparate 
> > Layer 2 protocols.
> > 
> > Generally one would use a Layer 3 service to provide this, 
> > but the use of a Layer 2 service allows greater decoupling 
> > between the client and transport networks.
> > 
> > The types of packets that need to be carried over a generic 
> > packet PW are know to be (are there others?):
> > 
> > IPv4
> > IPv6
> > IS-IS
> > MPLS
> > Compressed IP
> > 
> > In all cases the payload would be carried over a PW with a CW 
> > to allow ECMP suppression and the discrimination of different 
> > packet types multiplexied over the PW, for example IPv4 
> > packets and IS-IS protocol packets. Because a CW was used the 
> > EoS bit would need to be set in the transport label stack, as 
> > well as in the client label stack.
> > 
> > A generic PW would be supported by its own OAM mechanism
> > (VCCV) which would be different from any client OAM mechanism.
> > 
> > One application for the service would be a SP transit domain 
> > in which it was desired that there was no interaction between 
> > the client and transport network protocols (e.g., MPLS LSP 
> > transport services w/no LDP interaction between the transport 
> > and client networks).
> > 
> > The work within PWE3 would be a short encapsulation 
> > specification and applicability statement.
> > 
> > Where the generic packet PW payload was MPLS the PW would be 
> > transparent to the MPLS client layer and not an extension of 
> > the MPLS heirachy. This would need to be made clear in the 
> > applicability statement.
> > 
> > Do folks here have comments either way on the utility, 
> > application and/or requirement for this (i.e., if you're in 
> > favor or against please make it known to the list)?
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > -danny & Stewart 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 

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