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

[Vishwas Manral <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sasha,

You are right.

Have a look at the draft for LSP ping over a segment of a MS-PW
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-01

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Alexander Vainshtein
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> It seems that VCCV Type 2 or Type 3 are the only ways for running OAM on a
> segment of a MS-PW.
> Do I miss something here?
>
> My 2c,
>      Sasha
>
> ________________________________
> From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Shahram Davari [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:13 PM
> To: Pei Zhang(联通集团技术部); [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; wanggq; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] 答复: [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW
>
> Good. In that case you could use VCCV type 2 or 3.
>
>
>
> Thx
>
> SD
>
>
>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Pei Zhang(???????)
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 1:52 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; wanggq; [e-mail]
> Subject: [mpls-tp] 答复: [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The CW on many applications is also option in our network.
>
> Thanks,
> Pei
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
> [e-mail]
> 发送时间: 2010年7月1日 15:46
> 收件人: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with Jia and Luca. As CW is defined as OPTIONAL, there are many
> applications of PW without CW in our network.
> So I support the Proposal of using GAL for PW OAM.
>
> Best regards
>
> Ruiquan Jing
>
> China¡¡Telecom  Beijing  Research¡¡Institute
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jia HE
>> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 1:31 PM
>> To: Andrew G. Malis
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; HUANG Feng F;
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW
>>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> The problem is there do exist applications of PW without CW
>> in the network. By adding GAL for PW OAM it dosen't impact
>> the services on the wire and will align the OAM process for
>> both LSP and PW in MPLS-TP environment.
>>
>> Since MPLS-TP covers both LSP and PW, it is better to
>> consider them together for easy implementations.
>>
>>
>>
>> B.R.
>> Jia
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>
>> To: "HUANG Feng F" <[e-mail]>cn>;
>> "Larry" <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: <[e-mail]>om>; <[e-mail]>rg>; <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 12:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Proposal of using GAL for PW
>>
>>
>> > 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
>> > <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> On Behalf Of Larry
>> >> Sent: 2010Äê6ÔÂ30ÈÕ 17:38
>> >> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> >> Cc: [e-mail]
>> >> 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: [phone]
>> >> MOBILE: [phone]
>> >>
>> ********************************************************************
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>