I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-03.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Requirements for Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge 
                          (PWE3)
	Author(s)	: X. Xiao et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-03.txt
	Pages		: 19
	Date		: 28-Jun-02
	
This document describes generic requirements for Pseudo-Wire
Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3). It provides guidelines for other
working group documents that will define mechanisms for providing
pseudo-wire emulation of specific services such as Ethernet, ATM,
Frame Relay, TDM, and MPLS. It should be noted that the PWE3 Working
Group (PWE3 WG) standardizes mechanisms that can be used to provide
PWE3 services, but not the services themselves

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-03.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-pwe3-requirements-03.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in

RE: Comments on draft-malis-pwe3-sonet-03

Akiva - 

> 1) In section 5.2 "CEP Header" there is Note 1:
> "Implementations that choose to support programmable payload 
>    lengths SHOULD support payloads that are an integer multiple of 8 
>    bytes." Further, in section 9.1 the draft states "...EPAR 
> implementations
> SHOULD 
>    support a minimum payload length of 783/3 or 261 bytes" . 
> IMHO, the draft
> will be more
>   consistent with one of these SHOULDs dropped. 

Agreed.  This was part of an unfortunate episode where I found out after that fact that some folks had
implemented with an eye toward long-word alignment and others had implemented with an eye towards 783
byte alignment.  I'm thinking that we should keep the 783 byte MUST and all the SHOULDs should be long-word
aligned.  But, I'm open to suggestion...

> As for me,  
> the statement of
> section 
>   9.1 based on SONET/SDH ptr management principles better 
> fits the draft
> than that of 5.2
>   based on ... maybe some implementation experience.
> 
> 2) 6.2 Description of Normal CEP Operation : "The jitter 
> buffer SHOULD be
> adjustable in length to 
>    account for varying network delay behavior. " It is not 

Is the L2TPv3 Session ID globally unique, or just unique between peers?

I hope someone can clarify this point.  I have not found it explicitly
written in the drafts.

If the Session ID is globally unique, does the IP address of the sender need
to be verified?

If the Session ID is only unique between peers, then there is no issue, and
a tunnel is uniquely identified by the 3-tuple (IPSA, IPDA, Session-ID)?

Regards,
David.

Re: Is the L2TPv3 Session ID globally unique, or just unique betweenpeers?

David Clear wrote:
> 
> I hope someone can clarify this point.  I have not found it explicitly
> written in the drafts.
> 
> If the Session ID is globally unique, does the IP address of the sender need
> to be verified?
> 
> If the Session ID is only unique between peers, then there is no issue, and
> a tunnel is uniquely identified by the 3-tuple (IPSA, IPDA, Session-ID)?
> 

It is unique between peers. Although a session can be uniquely identified by
IPSA + IPDA + SID, or I suppose more correctly by VPN_ID + IPSA + IPDA + SID
there are some implementation advantages to using just IPDA + SID.

Stewart

> Regards,
> David.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Frame-Relay Pseudo-Wire Extensions for L2TP
	Author(s)	: W. Townsley et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr-01.txt
	Pages		: 10
	Date		: 01-Jul-02
	
The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol [L2TPv3] defines an extensible
tunneling protocol suitable for Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge
(PWE3) applications. This document describes the specifics of how to
use the L2TP control plane for Frame-Relay Pseudo-Wires, including
PVC creation, deletion, and line status change notification.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr-01.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-fr-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Lucent pending actions

RE: Updated PWE3 **Draft** Agenda

Danny,

We'd like to discuss the following drafts within the time slot that we
have:

The applicability statement: (Ron)

 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cohen-pwe3-tdmsonetapp-00.txt

The update to the previously published draft-pate-pwe3-tdm-03.txt :
(Ron)

 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pate-pwe3-sonet-vt-00.txt

The new version of the CESoPSN draft: (Sasha)

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vainshtein-cesopsn-03.txt

The time slot that we have (25 minutes) is ok

Thanks
Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pwe3-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-admin <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Danny McPherson
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 5:02 PM
> To: pwe3 <at> ietf.org
> Cc: agenda <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [PWE3] Updated PWE3 **Draft** Agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***Draft Agenda***
> 
> Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge (pwe3)
> 
> Monday, July 15, 0900-1130
> =================================
> 
> Chair: Danny McPherson <danny <at> tcb.net>
> 
> AGENDA:
> 
> 0900-0915 Administrivia (15 minutes)
> 
>             Agenda Bashing
>             Minutes
>             Blue Sheets
>             WG Document Status 
> 
> 0915-0925 PWE3 Protocol Layering
>            Stewart Bryant <stbryant <at> cisco.com>  
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-protocol-l
> ayer-00.txt
> 
> 0925-0935 PWE3 Fragmentation
>            Mark Townsley <townsley <at> cisco.com> 
>            Andy Malis <Andy.Malis <at> VivaceNetworks.com>
>            Draft forthcoming.
> 
> 0935-0940 PWE3 L2TP Draft
>            Mark Townsley <townsley <at> cisco.com>
> 
> 0940-0950 TDM Emulation Requirements Draft
>            Max Riegel <maximilian.riegel <at> icn.siemens.de>
>  
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-riegel-pwe3-tdm-requ
irements-00.txt

0950-1005 Real-World Issues with TDM Emulation
           Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s <at> Rad.co.il>

1005-1030 TDM Drafts Discussion
           Prayson Pate & ???
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vainshtein-cesopsn-02.txt
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pate-pwe3-tdm-03.txt

1030-1040 PWE3 Frame Relay Draft
           Andy Malis <Andy.Malis <at> VivaceNetworks.com>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-01.tx
t 

1040-1045 PWE3 SONET Emulation 
           Tom K. Johnson <tom_johnson <at> litchfieldcomm.com>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-malis-pwe3-sonet-03.txt

1045-1050 PWE3 SONET Emulation MIB
           Dave Danenberg 

1050-1055 PWE3 ATM PDU Mode
           Matthew.Bocci <at> alcatel.co.uk
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bocci-pwe3-app-frame-over-psn-
00.txt

1055-1105 Efficient Cell Mode Encapsulation
           Ghassem Koleyni <ghassem <at> nortelnetworks.com>
http://www.ietf/org/internet-drafts/draft-koleyni-pwe3-app-cell-over-psn
-01.txt 

1105-1115 Discussion of Martini ATM Draft:
           Luca Martini <luca <at> level3.net>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martini-atm-encap-mpls-01.txt

1115-1125 Discussion of Martini Transport Draft:
           Luca Martini <luca <at> level3.net>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-0
9.txt

1125-1130 Wrap Up

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

Comment on protocol layering draft

Folks,

Figure 11 of the protocol layering draft 
(draft-ietf-pwe3-protocol-layer-00) shows how the draft-martini 
encapsulation maps to the proposed layering structure for PWE3. However, 
this has not yet been formally chosen by the working group as the encap to 
go with for a number of the Layer 2 services. 

I think it would be better if each individual service draft had to show 
that it conforms to the PWE3 layering document, and for the layering draft 
to be independent of any specific encapsulation format. Please could we 
therefore remove the specific mapping to the draft-martini encapsulation 
shown in Figure 11.

Best regards,

Matthew

Re: Comment on protocol layering draft

The CW that we used was really a generic outline rather than the one 
from the Martini draft.

Does any group have plans to use a CW that does not conform to this 
outline: 

ie More than 4 bytes of control information?
ie Extra field that they regard as being generic?

If so perhaps we could modify the outline below to provide
a more appropriate generic MPLS CW. Is there any chance of us 
agreeing some generic format for the MPLS CW in Japan?

When it comes to the next round of cleanup, we could do one of two
things, either delete this text entirely as Matthew suggests, or
we could move it (and the IP equivalent) to a non-normative
annex. Any preferences?

Stewart

          +---------------------+
          |      Payload        |
          /=====================\
          H Payload Convergence H-----------------+
          H---------------------H                 |
          H       Timing        H                 |
          H---------------------H                 |
          H     Sequencing      H------------------------------------+
          \=====================/                 |                  |
          |  PW Demultiplexer   |---+             |                  |
          +---------------------+   |             |                  |
          |  PSN Convergence    |-----------------------+----+----+  |
          +---------------------+   |             |     |    |    |  |
          |        PSN          |-+ |             v     v    v    v  v
          +---------------------+ | |  +--------------------------------+
          |    MAC/Data-link    | | |  |      Flags   |Frag| Len |Seq # |
          +---------------------+ | |  +--------------------------------+
          |       Physical      | | +->|          Inner Label           |
          +---------------------+ |    +--------------------------------+
                                  +--->| Outer Label or MPLS-in-IP encap|
                                       +--------------------------------+

Matthew.Bocci <at> alcatel.co.uk wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Figure 11 of the protocol layering draft
> (draft-ietf-pwe3-protocol-layer-00) shows how the draft-martini
> encapsulation maps to the proposed layering structure for PWE3. However,
> this has not yet been formally chosen by the working group as the encap to
> go with for a number of the Layer 2 services.
> 
> I think it would be better if each individual service draft had to show
> that it conforms to the PWE3 layering document, and for the layering draft
> to be independent of any specific encapsulation format. Please could we
> therefore remove the specific mapping to the draft-martini encapsulation
> shown in Figure 11.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Matthew
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

Re: Comment on protocol layering draft

Stewart,

Thanks for your response. I don't know of any drafts that have more than a 
4 byte control word, but there are drafts (e.g. 
draft-fischer-pwe3-atm-service) that have a different order of the 
flags/length/sequence number in the control word, but do align with the 
correct layering. So I think that at least the contents of the control 
word should not be shown here.

Regards,

Matthew

Please respond to stbryant <at> cisco.com
Sent by:        pwe3-admin <at> ietf.org
To:     Matthew BOCCI/GB/ALCATEL <at> ALCATEL
cc:     pwe3 <at> ietf.org 
Subject:        Re: [PWE3] Comment on protocol layering draft

The CW that we used was really a generic outline rather than the one 
from the Martini draft.

Does any group have plans to use a CW that does not conform to this 
outline: 

ie More than 4 bytes of control information?
ie Extra field that they regard as being generic?

If so perhaps we could modify the outline below to provide
a more appropriate generic MPLS CW. Is there any chance of us 
agreeing some generic format for the MPLS CW in Japan?

When it comes to the next round of cleanup, we could do one of two
things, either delete this text entirely as Matthew suggests, or
we could move it (and the IP equivalent) to a non-normative
annex. Any preferences?

Stewart

          +---------------------+
          |      Payload        |
          /=====================\
          H Payload Convergence H-----------------+
          H---------------------H                 |
          H       Timing        H                 |
          H---------------------H                 |
          H     Sequencing      H------------------------------------+
          \=====================/                 |                  |
          |  PW Demultiplexer   |---+             |                  |
          +---------------------+   |             |                  |
          |  PSN Convergence    |-----------------------+----+----+  |
          +---------------------+   |             |     |    |    |  |
          |        PSN          |-+ |             v     v    v    v  v
          +---------------------+ | |  +--------------------------------+
          |    MAC/Data-link    | | |  |      Flags   |Frag| Len |Seq # |
          +---------------------+ | |  +--------------------------------+
          |       Physical      | | +->|          Inner Label           |
          +---------------------+ |    +--------------------------------+
                                  +--->| Outer Label or MPLS-in-IP encap|
                                       +--------------------------------+

Matthew.Bocci <at> alcatel.co.uk wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Figure 11 of the protocol layering draft
> (draft-ietf-pwe3-protocol-layer-00) shows how the draft-martini
> encapsulation maps to the proposed layering structure for PWE3. However,
> this has not yet been formally chosen by the working group as the encap 
to
> go with for a number of the Layer 2 services.
> 
> I think it would be better if each individual service draft had to show
> that it conforms to the PWE3 layering document, and for the layering 
draft
> to be independent of any specific encapsulation format. Please could we
> therefore remove the specific mapping to the draft-martini encapsulation
> shown in Figure 11.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Matthew
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3