IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 30 June 2010 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <amalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7ED3A69AE for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XeVft0jZ3u8X for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A0E3A690C for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so1216764vws.31 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dM9vSjZ3CSReJjMxklNuvZFq2ZT2s3+50i+uaZ15qLQ=; b=H+/XfbtLvlVS67LEIaawTxGkpGKYRjvnv1mXK9uSXqkI+RS5s7y5r4zlohLu/Wl6/W 9t5Y7J1EzAlSGesnxywanU0u2SdI6OvA+6//5C3rXuVHVtjjrFlqz+qCHXzEvTEHXCz7 YTwk2WEiMzo1Rr9ppAh+YgqVFGbNXG+LJiQIM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=DP7LUl4giiT5eOy2Q8MpqU0g3RKMPN+VLw7SUTDTuDBp/pGbXXwxsYnh8O2yMXPmId rl3OJQ691xYRdfkCTYRpn3VkNi5/7EFL1f8P7fitmgGkllp6svDfMim2Buu2ITDXBB7y nLio8mnv3z7dfLA/xBj/G0Gupmou9UF1hspA8=
Received: by 10.220.122.71 with SMTP id k7mr4921562vcr.117.1277915765111; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: amalis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.220.71.8 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.4280.1277915257.4839.mpls-tp@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.4280.1277915257.4839.mpls-tp@ietf.org>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:35:45 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6iG8f8em8io4M7ZBCrSlt9_Hvro
Message-ID: <AANLkTimCytuac5xZJfY4KlkwZ_zdhHuj6yHXe8achA9J@mail.gmail.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:35:59 -0000

Larry and Feng,

This issue has previously been discussed at length by the working
group, both at the Anaheim meeting and by email, for example in emails
with the subject line "Possible Contradiction re use of GAL in
pwe3-static-pw-status". There was rough consensus that for MPLS-TP
applications and/or when PW OAM is desired, PW implementations are
mature enough (it has been 10 years now, after all) that the time has
come to require the implementation of the CW for all PWs, including
Ethernet.

Cheers,
Andy

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 AM, HUANG Feng F
<Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn> wrote:
>
> it is reasonable to support GAL in MPLS-TP PW OAM, it is more generic, because CW is an option RFC4448 for Ethernet over MPLS.
>
> 4.6.  The Control Word
>
> xxxx
>
>
> The features that the control word provides may not be needed for a
>   given Ethernet PW.  For example, ECMP may not be present or active on
>   a given MPLS network, strict frame sequencing may not be required,
>   etc.  If this is the case, the control word provides little value and
>   is therefore optional.  Early Ethernet PW implementations have been
>   deployed that do not include a control word or the ability to process
>   one if present.  To aid in backwards compatibility, future
>   implementations MUST be able to send and receive frames without the
>   control word present.
> xxxx
>
>
>
> B.R.
> Feng Huang
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Larry
> Sent: 2010年6月30日 17:38
> To: mpls-tp@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org
> Cc: lihan@chinamobile.com
> Subject: [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW
>
> Dear all:
>
>     In section 4.2 in RFC5586, it is defined that GAL MUST NOT be used with PWs in MPLS-TP. The PWE3 control word [RFC4385] MUST be present when the ACH is used to realize the associated control channel.
>     In real application, a lot of MPLS and MPLS-TP equipments do not support control word. It is proposed to use the GAL to identify associated control channel in PW layer.
>
> Best regards,
>
>                 Han Li
>
> ********************************************************************
> Han Li, Ph.D
> China Mobile Research Institute
> Unit 2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China
> Fax: +86 10 63601087
> MOBILE: 13501093385
> ********************************************************************
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email