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

[Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]>]

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]; am 
> [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