IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [L2tpext] [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"

Jiang Yuan-long <yljiang@huawei.com> Wed, 19 August 2009 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <yljiang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C266E3A6A1F; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1tKSD0fJDzgr; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ED213A6987; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KOL006S5NRIIX@szxga01-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:21:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.33]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KOL00HIWNRIU3@szxga01-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:21:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from j59929 ([10.70.40.68]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KOL00GCJNRIKM@szxml06-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:21:18 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:21:18 +0800
From: Jiang Yuan-long <yljiang@huawei.com>
To: Himanshu Shah <hshah@force10networks.com>, pwe3@ietf.org
Message-id: <001c01ca206b$5a881e20$4428460a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_UGSaf9wV1+y2Kw0NakDqEQ)"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <000d01ca2003$f6b83ae0$4428460a@china.huawei.com> <34F81DE93A7AA840A6A3B1187BAD5FC80300C9661B@EXCH-CLUSTER-10.force10networks.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:07:39 -0700
Cc: l2tpext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [L2tpext] [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
X-BeenThere: l2tpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <l2tpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2tpext>
List-Post: <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:21:27 -0000

Himanshu,

Thanks for your instant reply. 
What I am concerned is:
1) PW type 0x000B is not defined in RFC 3032, it is defined in draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ip. 
2) MPLS LSP encapsulated IP (as in RFC 3032) may not be the same as PW 
    encapsulated IP (which may include a CW as described in RFC 4447)
3) The setup procedure of LSP and PW is a little different, and PW type field is 
    only used in the latter case. Do we really set up a PW to carry IP or just an LSP?
So this reference is misleading IMO.

But I am very glad to know that this is indeed the PW type for IP, and some 
active drafts are using this mechanism.
Thank you again for this information.

  Best Regards
Yuanlong Jiang
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Himanshu Shah 
  To: Jiang Yuan-long ; pwe3@ietf.org 
  Cc: l2tpext@ietf.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:39 PM
  Subject: RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"


  There are a couple of drafts in L2VPN WG that uses this PW type (0x000B), 

  such as http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation-12

  So it is not an error or problem in the RFC 3032. It is meant to carry IP payload without any data link headers.

   

  Himanshu

  Force10 networks

   

   

   

   

   

   

  From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jiang Yuan-long
  Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:01 AM
  To: pwe3@ietf.org
  Cc: l2tpext@ietf.org
  Subject: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"

   

  Hi, all:


  I came accross an error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire 

  Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)".

   

  In Sec 3.2, it says:
  "   0x000B  IP Layer2 Transport                              [RFC3032]"

   

  it should be:   
     0x000B  IP Layer2 Transport                        [draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ip]
     
  The same problem also exists in web page version http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters.

  I wonder how about the status of this expired WG draft, will any more work 

  continue on this document or just expired as it is? 
  I also wonder whether we should define a PW type for IP payload so that

  everything on PW is possible.
  Any comments?
     
     Thanks,
  Yuanlong Jiang

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email