Re: [mpls] Clarification request on PW types (Manual, 128 FEC, 129 FEC) usage for MPLS-TP
venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com> Tue, 31 August 2010 19:55 UTC
Return-Path: <venkatflex@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED813A6A99; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X+LFb1Gbxzfx; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF413A6A08; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvg7 with SMTP id 7so3116110pvg.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IS7GOBlayCO/Qg57QHEbxFRiR8Z2J6Cx63GQO0ntjlg=; b=I7DGzGovCwtXzDn1rWtJz246atJsl2zCJ2BX4Ms5afGx8D20bOemOZnOwbCphlgrbV 6WXuLk5CpPtSSAXp0/wALb9cfD6ZdJ4rPHcWM9dOGM8OMxJgymC8iTqZt82PdC2zlTTa BX9MbveVQejgqlVZriJPUtIB4TKcMNeOvRkYk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=SBBN7OBmHRAPrWcqCzvwxmqJC8xjnXv/+U21MWVzvr6oWxvN2TN0Hzgxk5p4HAtv9w P+fR3VsGsje3jX5D43W2aiEEcLFeu3eNh3ZoueSt3nQPIGCXf0Y7UPc1jvL1QvNGK3y4 OKuxnhI6NTpXgNglF0gaLS+JnFzT4AkJPCNxs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.127.16 with SMTP id z16mr6468093wfc.50.1283284544334; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.20.35 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinyCssR3POW-mx=jbs4ALtxzcchAs0gb0AuLdNR@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinyCssR3POW-mx=jbs4ALtxzcchAs0gb0AuLdNR@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:25:44 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTin8bBwMrm-S+OnGhYz2HU-jkHSxstseH_JLr5fa@mail.gmail.com>
From: venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com>
To: pwe3@ietf.org, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, mpls-tp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd32b8a692ea6048f23f748"
Subject: Re: [mpls] Clarification request on PW types (Manual, 128 FEC, 129 FEC) usage for MPLS-TP
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:55:14 -0000
Hi, Could you please reply to this clarification request? BR, Venkat. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM, venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi, > As per MPLS-TP identifiers-2 draft, Section 6. Pseudowire Path > Identifiers, draft mentions that the 129 FEC AII Type-2 fits the > requirement of MPLS-TP. > > Can we say that other types of PWs (128 FEC, 129 FEC AII Type-1, > manual) are not applicable for MPLS-TP networks? > ** > It looks to me that 129 FEC is always used in signalling for label > distribution using LDP/BGP. > ** > Can we use 129 FEC AII type-2 for static/signalling? > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00 draft, section 2.4.2. Static > Pseudowire Sub-TLV > mentions that the 129 FEC AII type-2 can be static PW, Can somebody explain > the configurations expected in RFC-5601 MIB to achieve this static 129 FEC > AII Type-2, Can you please let me know the reason for not having the AGI in > the Static PW Sub-TLV. > > What sort of changes update the RFC-5601? > > What is the pwOwner expected for PW created for MPLS-TP networks? > > Example, > For manual PW (by configuring the labels manually) - pwOwner should have > the value *manual*. > For 128 FEC PW (signalling) - pwOwner should have the *pwIdFecSignaling*. > For 129 FEC PW (signalling) - pwOwner should have the value * > genFecSignaling*. > > pwOwner OBJECT-TYPE > SYNTAX INTEGER { > manual (1), > pwIdFecSignaling (2), -- PW signaling with PW ID FEC > genFecSignaling (3), -- Generalized attachment FEC > l2tpControlProtocol (4), > other (5) > } > MAX-ACCESS read-create > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "This object is set by the operator to indicate the protocol > responsible for establishing this PW. > 'manual' is used in all cases where no maintenance > protocol (PW signaling) is used to set up the PW, i.e., > configuration of entries in the PW tables including > PW labels, etc., is done by setting the MIB fields manually. > 'pwIdFecSignaling' is used in case of signaling with the > Pwid FEC element with LDP signaling. > 'genFecSignaling' is used in case of LDP signaling with > the generalized FEC. > 'l2tpControlProtocol' indicates the use of the L2TP > control protocol. > 'other' is used for other types of signaling." > ::= { pwEntry 3 } > > -- > Best Regards, > Venkatesan Mahalingam. > -- Best Regards, Venkatesan Mahalingam.
- [mpls] Clarification request on PW types (Manual,… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls] Clarification request on PW types (Man… venkatesan mahalingam