Re: [L2tpext] [mpls-tp] Section 3.4.1 of the MPLS TP Framework I-D - Nee RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446"IANA Allocations for PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"

[Yong Lucy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jiang and John,

 

IMO. MPLS-TP supports two types of client: client network layer and client
non-network layer. IP can be as client in both cases. The matter is that
transport characteristics in two methods have some differences. As the
result, to carry a L3 network client, it is required to use the service
label. This is what I try to get clarification from John.

 

In fact, both PW label and service label are the bottom label. (S=1). This
is the importance. Separating them is to distinguish server transport
methods, not much to the payload itself. 

 

Regards,

Lucy

 

  _____  

From: Jiang Yuan-long [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 10:20 PM
To: [e-mail]; Drake, John E
Cc: [e-mail]; Yong Lucy; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: RE: [mpls-tp] Section 3.4.1 of the MPLS TP Framework I-D - Nee
RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446"IANA Allocations for PseudowireEdge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)"

 

Hi Liu,

 

Mapping our discussion topic to the nomenclature of this draft, it is:

Can this service label be a PW label when the payload is IP?

 

Thanks,

Yuanlong

----- Original Message ----- 

From: [e-mail] 

To: Drake, John E <mailto:[e-mail]>  

Cc: [e-mail] ; Yong Lucy <mailto:[e-mail]>  ;
[e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ;
[e-mail] ; Jiang Yuan-long <mailto:[e-mail]>  

Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:53 AM

Subject: RE： [mpls-tp] Section 3.4.1 of the MPLS TP Framework I-D - Nee RE:
[PWE3] An error in RFC 4446"IANA Allocations for PseudowireEdge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)"

 


hi,all 
I reviewed section 3.4.1 in draft-ieft-mpls-tp-framework-02, for all cient
services, there is a unite service label(s=1) to identify procotol payload
type, and The mapping between protocol payload type and Service Label is
either configured or signaled. 
if this section will not changed in the future. I think that it is
unnecessary to continue to disscuss the topic. 

how about all? 

best regards 
liu


 

 







"Drake, John E" <[e-mail]> 
发件人:  [e-mail] 

2009-08-20 04:31 


收件人

"Yong Lucy" <[e-mail]>, "Jiang Yuan-long" <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> 


抄送

[e-mail], [e-mail] 


主题

[mpls-tp] Section 3.4.1 of the MPLS TP Framework I-D - Nee RE:        [PWE3]
An error in RFC 4446"IANA Allocations        for        PseudowireEdge to
Edge Emulation (PWE3)"

 


 

 


ie




Lucy,

I'm sorry but I don't understand your conclusion.  I think your
penultimate sentence is correct but I don't understand its relevance,
and your last sentence appears to have precipitated a layer inversion.

Section 3.4.1 deals with client network layer payloads, where 'network
layer' is defined in RFC 3031 to be "synonymous with layer 3".

Thanks,

John  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yong Lucy [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:44 PM
> To: Drake, John E; 'Jiang Yuan-long'; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446"IANA Allocations for 
> PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> One clarification on this:
> 
> When client network layer over MPLS-TP LSP directly, the 
> method implies that client network layer can use this MPLS-TP 
> LSP as a client network link because the LSP is a 
> bidirectional point to point connection. When client traffic 
> over a PW, the PW does not guarantee link characteristics.
> Therefore, the method only applies to client non-network layer.
> 
> Is my understanding correct? 
> 
> Regards,
> Lucy
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of Drake, John E
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:09 AM
> > To: Jiang Yuan-long; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for 
> > PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > 
> > Yuanlong Jiang,
> > 
> > Please see section 3.4.1 of the MPLS TP Framework I-D:
> > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-02.txt
> > 
> > It describes how client network layer payloads (e.g., IP 
> and MPLS) are 
> > carried directly, i.e., without a pseudo-wire, over an MPLS 
> TP server 
> > network.
> > 
> > Client non-network layer payloads still use pseudo-wires.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jiang Yuan-long [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:21 PM
> > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for 
> > > PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > >
> > > Neil,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply.
> > > As Himanshu said in the last email, 0x000B is actually 
> the PW type 
> > > for IP, rather than L2TP PW type for IP. So I believe it is also 
> > > feasible for MPLS-TP.
> > >
> > > I agree with you that there is some difficulty for MPLS 
> label stack 
> > > to operate in the same manner as client/server layering 
> model, but 
> > > an adaptation layer such as PW functions now is indispensable.
> > >
> > >  Best Regards
> > > Yuanlong Jiang
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >                  ----- Original Message -----
> > >                  From: [e-mail]
> > >                  To: [e-mail] ; [e-mail]
> > >                  Cc: [e-mail]
> > >                  Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:16 AM
> > >                  Subject: RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA
Allocations for 
> > > Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > >
> > >                  Hi Yuanlong Jiang,
> > >
> > >                  Where you said below:
> > >                  "I also wonder whether we should define a PW type for

> IP payload so 
> > > that everything on PW is possible"
> > >
> > >                  This is precisely what a key consequence of MPLS-TP
is, 
> ie in the 
> > > LDP spin of MPLS we had to define PWs (one reason being that LDP 
> > > requires that IP traffic units can run native in the DP with MPLS 
> > > traffic units), but given we can't have IP in the MPLS-TP 
> DP and we 
> > > can't have LDP mp2p merging constructs in MPLS-TP anyway 
> (the latter 
> > > point is all about resource management determinism) then the 
> > > original driver for PWs is gone.....just a fact.  So now 
> everything 
> > > is a PW and nothing is a PW....that is, we just have 
> clients (any) 
> > > of MPLS-TP.
> > >
> > >                  We still have a tricky issue with the S bit that is
not fully 
> > > understood IMO yet (S bit => sublayering, as opposed to true 
> > > client/server layering), which is also related to the important 
> > > topic of being able to do MPLSoverMPLS as a proper client/server 
> > > relationship.
> > >
> > >                  So what you point out below will be the case in
MPLS-TP anyway 
> > > (though I'm not sure everyone is comfortable with the 
> acceptance of 
> > > this fact yet)
> > >
> > >                  regards, Neil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >                                   From: [e-mail]
> > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jiang Yuan-long
> > >                                   Sent: 18 August 2009 14:01
> > >                                   To: [e-mail]
> > >                                   Cc: [e-mail]
> > >                                   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
> > > <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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp




--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is
solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is
confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and
are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the
message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.