IETF Logo Mail Archive

[PWE3] Mandatory Control Word

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Tue, 26 October 2010 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E805C3A69BD for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 iVpH6Nx5Kxfh for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0855F3A69A9 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFOrxkxAZnwN/2dsb2JhbAChTXGkWoI7DAGZeIVIBIpT
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,242,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="175442356"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Oct 2010 17:23:37 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9QHNaax008291 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:23:36 GMT
Received: from dhcp-gpk02-vlan300-64-103-65-105.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id o9QHNZ824701; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:23:35 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4CC70E97.7000100@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:23:35 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.11) Gecko/20101013 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [PWE3] Mandatory Control Word
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:22:02 -0000

From

draft-delregno-pwe3-mandatory-control-word/

=======
2.  Mandatory Control Word

    The Control Word SHALL be mandatory for all PWE3 encapsulations.  The
    use of the sequence number remains OPTIONAL.

    As a result of the Control Word being Mandatory, all implementations
    of the PWE3 encapsulations SHALL follow Section 6.1 of [RFC4447]
    wherein the "PWs MUST have c=1".  This requirement SHALL remain until
    such time, if ever, RFC4447 is superceded and the support for Control
    Word negotiation is removed as a result of this mandate.

======

Given the reality of network deployments I do not see how we can
talk about removing the requirement to negotiate the CW in any
realistic time frame.

It's fine to require the CW for all new PW types, and it's
probably OK to RECOMMEND operation with the CW, but it's
unrealistic to remove the option given the extent of the deployed
systems.

- Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email