Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Pseudo-wires: uni-directional o bi-directional?

Dear Sasha,
I too find Stewart's explanation very useful for overall MPLS-TP. And in
this perspective perhaps the SS PW might be also referred as PW section.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Vainshtein <
Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:

>  Stewart,
>
> Lots of thanks for a prompt and unambiguous response..
>
> This issues looks like one more fine point of MPLS-TP-ese to me: Does
> “co-routed” mean “co-routed in the immediate lower layer” or “co-routed in
> all the underlying layers down to the duct”?
>
> FWIW, I tend to agree with your interpretation: “co-routed” means
> “co-routed in the immediate lower layer”, and hence PWs (both single-segment
> and multi-segment) are co-routed bi-directional LSPs.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>      Sasha
>
>
>
> *From:* pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Stewart Bryant
> *Sent:* Monday, June 28, 2010 3:46 PM
> *To:* pwe3@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [PWE3] Pseudo-wires: uni-directional o bi-directional?
>
>
>
>
>
>   It seems to me that PWs are associated bi-directional LSPs...
>
>
>
> PWs are co-routed bi-directional since it is required that they go through
> the same xPEs in each direction, and the xPEs knows about the association of
> the two directional components.
>
> Whether they run over co-routed bi-directional, or associated
> bi-directional LSP is a deployment/applicability issue.
>
> - Stewart
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>