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

[[e-mail]]

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
>