Re: What is the difference between EthernetOverPseudowire and Ethernet over MPLS

draft-martini-l2circuit-encap-mpls-14.txt

was an individual contribution to the PWE3 WG
that was used as the basis for

draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-07.txt

which is the PWE3 WG draft that has been 
submitted to the IESG for approval.

- Stewart

Linda Dunbar wrote:

>The " draft-martini-l2circuit-encap-mpls-14.txt" describes the mechanism of
>mapping Ethernet (and ATM or others ) over MPLS.
>
>The "draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-07.txt" describes the mechanism of how
>to map Ethernet to MPLS.
>
>Could anyone tell me what is the relationship between those two drafts? Are
>they conflict with each other?  or compliment each other ? and How?
>
>
>Thank you very much for the help.
>
>Regards, Linda Dunbar
>
>
>

Re: Different between Pseudowire demultiplexor and Tunnel encapsulation

Linda Dunbar wrote:

>The Section 4.1.1 of  "draft-ietf-pwe3-ethernet-encap-07.txt" (Generic
>Procedures) indicate that NSP/Forwarder needs to prepend "Proper Pseudowire
>demultiplexor" and "proper Tunnel encapsulation".
>
>Could anyone tell me  what is the difference between the Pseudowire
>demultiplexor and Tunnel encapsulation, and the function of each?
>  
>

The tunnel encap get the packet across the PSN to the outbound PE.

The demux  encap tells that PE which PW the payload belongs to and hence 
which attachment
circuit it needs to go out on.

In an MPLS network they are both MPLS lables.

In a network using L2TPv3, the IP + L2TPv3 header provides the tunnel encap
and L2TPv3 session_id provides the PW Demux

- Stewart

>Thanks, Linda Dunbar
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-09.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		: SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP)
	Author(s)	: A. Malis, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-09.txt
	Pages		: 48
	Date		: 2004-9-7
	
This draft provides encapsulation formats and semantics for
emulating SONET/SDH circuits and services over a packet-switched
network (PSN).

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-09.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

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-sonet-09.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

draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt error

In draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt, the PW Grouping TLV is described
as:

<clip>
5.2.2.2. PW Grouping TLV

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|0|PW Grouping ID TLV (0x096C)|            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Parameter ID |    Length     |    Variable Length Value      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Variable Length Value                 |
   |                             "                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   [ note: TLV type 0x096C as defined in [13] pending IANA allocation ]

   The PW Grouping ID is an arbitrary 32 bit value which represents an
   arbitrary group of PWs.  It is used create groups PWs; for example, a
   PW Grouping ID can be used as a port index, and assigned to all PWs
   that lead to that port.  Use of the PW Grouping ID enables one to
   send "wild card" label withdrawals, or "wild card" status
   notification messages to remote PEs upon physical port failure.
<clip>

Surely the figure is not correct since the text speaks of a 32-bit value and
not a parameter ID and a variable length value. The figure looks a lot like
the one above in draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt for Interface TLV,

PW-DRAFT05-MIB and PW-MPLS-DRAFT06-MIB questions

Some questions:

1) When pwVcTable.pwVcOwner is set to 'genFecSignaling' (using Generalized
ID FEC signaling) there is no MIB object that can specify the value to be
used in an optional PW grouping TLV. The MIB object
pwVcTable.pwVcLocalGroupID could be used for that purpose, but it requires a
change in the description text.

2) PW-DRAFT05-MIB mentions an optional mode where pwVcTable rows are created
when signaling messages arrive. And this leads to creation of rows in
PW-MPLS-DRAFT06-MIB when MPLS PSN tunnels are used. However, am I correct in
assuming that an operator would still have to set up the rows in
PW-MPLS-DRAFT06-MIB manually? So even though Generalized ID FEC signaling
has the ability to signal a PW 'both ways' between two nodes by just
touching one of the nodes, it is always necessary to touch both nodes?

Regards,

Benny Lønstrup Ammitzbøll, M.Sc.E.E.
T|Pack A/S
Lautrupbjerg 7-11
DK-2750 Ballerup, Denmark
Phone: (+45) 44732100
Direct: (+45) 44732140
mailto:bla <at> tpack.net - www.tpack.net

_______________________________________________

RE: PW-DRAFT05-MIB and PW-MPLS-DRAFT06-MIB questions

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

Re: draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt error

Yes this has already been fixed , I will send out a new version as soon 
as I have finished processing the lats call comments.

Luca

Benny Ammitzbøll wrote:

>In draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt, the PW Grouping TLV is described
>as:
>
><clip>
>5.2.2.2. PW Grouping TLV
>
>    0                   1                   2                   3
>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |0|0|PW Grouping ID TLV (0x096C)|            Length             |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |  Parameter ID |    Length     |    Variable Length Value      |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |                         Variable Length Value                 |
>   |                             "                                 |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>   [ note: TLV type 0x096C as defined in [13] pending IANA allocation ]
>
>   The PW Grouping ID is an arbitrary 32 bit value which represents an
>   arbitrary group of PWs.  It is used create groups PWs; for example, a
>   PW Grouping ID can be used as a port index, and assigned to all PWs
>   that lead to that port.  Use of the PW Grouping ID enables one to
>   send "wild card" label withdrawals, or "wild card" status
>   notification messages to remote PEs upon physical port failure.
><clip>
>
>Surely the figure is not correct since the text speaks of a 32-bit value and
>not a parameter ID and a variable length value. The figure looks a lot like
>the one above in draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt for Interface TLV,
>so it's probably a cut&paste thing..
>
>Regards,
>
>Benny Lxnstrup Ammitzbxll, M.Sc.E.E.
>T|Pack A/S
>Lautrupbjerg 7-11
>DK-2750 Ballerup, Denmark
>Phone: (+45) 44732100
>Direct: (+45) 44732140
>mailto:bla <at> tpack.net - www.tpack.net
>
>  
>

RE: Minor fix to CEP/TDM bit rate in draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt

Thanks
Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini <at> cisco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:55 AM
> To: Ron Cohen
> Cc: PWE3 (IETF)
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Minor fix to CEP/TDM bit rate in 
> draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt
> 
> 
> Ok  I'll take you word for it.
> I fixed it.
> Luca
> 
> Ron Cohen wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >I believe the the value of CEP/TDM bit rate parameter for CEP VT6 SPE
> >should be changed:
> >
> >"CEP/TDM bit rate: .... 99 - for VT6  SPE...."   99 should 
> be replaced
> >by 107
> >
> >Regards
> >Ron
> >
> >Ron Cohen
> >CTO
> >Lycium Networks 
> >Mobile: 650.823.7672
> >Mobile:  +972.55.245.104
> >Tel:  650.234.4010
> >Fax:  650.854.8183
> >
> >===================================================== 
> >This email message and any files transmitted with it contain
> >confidential information intended only for its addressee(s). 
> If you are
> >not the addressee of this message, any reading, disclosure, copying,
> >printing, distribution or forwarding by you of this message or its
> >content or attachments is strictly forbidden. In such case, please
> >notify us immediately by replying to this message or by calling
> >650.234.4010 and delete the message from your computer. Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >pwe3 mailing list
> >pwe3 <at> ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >
> >  
> >
> 

Re: Minor fix to CEP/TDM bit rate in draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt

Ok  I'll take you word for it.
I fixed it.
Luca

Ron Cohen wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I believe the the value of CEP/TDM bit rate parameter for CEP VT6 SPE
>should be changed:
>
>"CEP/TDM bit rate: .... 99 - for VT6  SPE...."   99 should be replaced
>by 107
>
>Regards
>Ron
>
>Ron Cohen
>CTO
>Lycium Networks 
>Mobile: 650.823.7672
>Mobile:  +972.55.245.104
>Tel:  650.234.4010
>Fax:  650.854.8183
>
>===================================================== 
>This email message and any files transmitted with it contain
>confidential information intended only for its addressee(s). If you are
>not the addressee of this message, any reading, disclosure, copying,
>printing, distribution or forwarding by you of this message or its
>content or attachments is strictly forbidden. In such case, please
>notify us immediately by replying to this message or by calling
>650.234.4010 and delete the message from your computer. Thank you.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>pwe3 <at> ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>  
>

RE: PW-DRAFT05-MIB and PW-MPLS-DRAFT06-MIB questions

David,

More questions:

1) I have yet not found anything that supports me in this, but I am assuming
that the PW-DRAFT05-MIB agent should implement some sort of retry-timer when
a pwVcTable row has been created? In case the peer node rejects the Label
Mapping message (e.g. due to misconfiguration in the peer node that is later
fixed) or if LDP is unable to establish an LDP session with the peer. If you
agree, then there is a need for a retry timer MIB object in pwVcTable.

2) I see a strong need for QoS signaling for PW such as e.g. proposed in
draft-shah-pwe3-pw-qos-signaling-00.txt. The pwVcTable lacks support for
this. Maybe via a RowPointer object that can optionally point to a traffic
parameter table entry in some other MIB?

Regards,

Benny

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	David Zelig [mailto:Davidz <at> corrigent.com] 
> Sent:	9. september 2004 16:10
> To:	Benny Ammitzb?ll; tnadeau <at> cisco.com; dave_danenberg <at> yahoo.com;
> sharon.mantin <at> axonlink.com; pwe3 <at> ietf.org
> Cc:	Mikkel Elmholdt
> Subject:	RE: PW-DRAFT05-MIB and PW-MPLS-DRAFT06-MIB questions
> 
> Benny,
> See inside
> 
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: 	Benny.Ammitzboell <at> tpack.net 
> > [mailto:Benny.Ammitzboell <at> tpack.net] 
> > Sent:	Thursday, September 09, 2004 1:23 PM
> > To:	David Zelig; tnadeau <at> cisco.com; 
> > dave_danenberg <at> yahoo.com; sharon.mantin <at> axonlink.com; pwe3 <at> ietf.org
> > Cc:	Mikkel Elmholdt
> > Subject:	PW-DRAFT05-MIB and PW-MPLS-DRAFT06-MIB questions
> > 
> > Some questions:
> > 
> > 1) When pwVcTable.pwVcOwner is set to 'genFecSignaling' 
> > (using Generalized ID FEC signaling) there is no MIB object 
> > that can specify the value to be used in an optional PW 
> > grouping TLV. The MIB object pwVcTable.pwVcLocalGroupID could 
> > be used for that purpose, but it requires a change in the 
> > description text.
> > 
> OK. Will be fixed in next revision.
> 
> > 2) PW-DRAFT05-MIB mentions an optional mode where pwVcTable 
> > rows are created when signaling messages arrive. And this 
> > leads to creation of rows in PW-MPLS-DRAFT06-MIB when MPLS 
> > PSN tunnels are used. However, am I correct in assuming that 
> > an operator would still have to set up the rows in 
> > PW-MPLS-DRAFT06-MIB manually? So even though Generalized ID 
> > FEC signaling has the ability to signal a PW 'both ways' 
> > between two nodes by just touching one of the nodes, it is 
> > always necessary to touch both nodes?
> > 
> 
> If the MPLS tunnels are LDP based, I do not see a need to specifically
> touch both node, the node can select automatically the tunnel going to the
> peer. Even in TE tunnels, there could be some local policy for tunnel
> selection so the tunnel will be selected automatically. In both cases the
> MIB will report the selected tunnel.
> 
> David
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Benny L?nstrup Ammitzb?ll, M.Sc.E.E.
> > T|Pack A/S
> > Lautrupbjerg 7-11
> > DK-2750 Ballerup, Denmark
> > Phone: (+45) 44732100
> > Direct: (+45) 44732140
> > mailto:bla <at> tpack.net - www.tpack.net
> > 

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