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

[Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sasha,

Even if it is segment within MSPW, how can SPE advertise type2, due to  
the reason I mentioned earlier?

-sam
On Jul 3, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:

> Sam,
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response and clarification.
>
> Please note, however, that I have been talking about segment OAM for  
> MS-PWs.
> Regards,
>      Sasha
>
> From: Sam Aldrin [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 2:17 AM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein
> Cc: Shahram Davari; Pei Zhang(联通集团技术部); [e-mail]; he 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];  
> [e-mail]; wanggq; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls-tp] 答复: Proposal of using GAL for PW
>
> Sasha,
>
> Due to the presence of RA label, the packet will be punted at the  
> adjacent SPE/TPE router, which is the end of the segment.
> If you have to ping or trace beyond one segment, i.e. in MSPW, how  
> does the packet get there with RA label in there?
> For that very reason, SPE's do not even advertise type 2 VCCV  
> capability.
>
> -sam
> On Jul 3, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
>
>> Sam,
>> Could you please elaborate?
>>
>> Regards,
>>      Sasha
>>
>> From: Sam Aldrin [[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:46 PM
>> To: Alexander Vainshtein
>> Cc: Shahram Davari; Pei Zhang(联通集团技术部); [e-mail]; he 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] 
>> ; wanggq; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls-tp] 答复: Proposal of using GAL for PW
>>
>> In the case of MS-PW, I don't think you can use type2(RA).
>>
>> -sam
>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Alexander Vainshtein 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 ruiquan.jing@ti 
>>> es.itu.int
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>