Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Are there any objections in the WG to Tom's suggestion?

Thanks,
Andy

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]> wrote:
> That's precisely what I'm asking for: for the wg to agree to augment the existing survey with a short additional one that focuses in the missing bfd mode only.
>
> Tom
>
> On Mar 17, 2011, at 12:03 PM, "Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Tom:
>>
>> Please pose that question to the WG (maybe that's what you were doing).
>> When we crafted the survey, omitting BFD was an oversight.  However, the
>> list of questions was sent to the WG for comment before the survey was
>> conducted.  If the WG would like, I can contact the respondents directly
>> to inquire of their BFD usage as well.  However, I don't think the
>> survey should be reopened.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:18 PM
>> To: Luca Martini
>> Cc: Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno); Yaakov Stein; pwe3
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for
>> draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00
>>
>>
>>    One thing I'd ask is that we augment the survey to ask about the
>> BFD mode for
>> VCCV. It seems to have been left out of the survey, potentially skewing
>> the results.
>> As I understand it, this is the most popular mode.
>>
>>    --Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Luca Martini wrote:
>>
>>> Nick,
>>> Good survey, thanks for the work.
>>>
>>> Are we going to publish this as informational ?
>>> I think we should .
>>> Also there is a mention of AToM in section 2.7 item 5 . It should be
>>> changed to PWE ( AToM is a cisco marketing term , so we want o keep
>> this
>>> anonymous )
>>> Thanks.
>>> Luca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/15/2011 09:41 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
>>>> Nick,
>>>>
>>>> In section 2.2 the percentages make sense under the assumption of 18
>> respondents :
>>>> 5.6%   =  1 / 18
>>>> 11.1%  =  2 / 18
>>>> 16.7%  =  3 / 18
>>>> 22.2%  =  4 / 18
>>>> 44.4%  =  8 / 18
>>>> 77.8%  = 14 / 18
>>>>
>>>> but section 2.1 only lists 17 :
>>>> 1.    Time Warner Cable
>>>> 2.    Bright House Networks
>>>> 3.    Tinet
>>>> 4.    AboveNet
>>>> 5.    Telecom New Zealand
>>>> 6.    Cox Communications
>>>> 7.    MTN South Africa
>>>> 8.    Wipro Technologies
>>>> 9.    Verizon
>>>> 10.    AMS-IX
>>>> 11.    Superonline
>>>> 12.    Deutsche Telekom AG
>>>> 13.    Internet Solution
>>>> 14.    Easynet Global Services
>>>> 15.    Telstra Corporation
>>>> 16.    OJSC MegaFon
>>>> 17.    France Telecom Orange
>>>>
>>>> Did you leave someone off, or did someone answer twice ?
>>>>
>>>> Y(J)S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 16:27
>>>> To: pwe3
>>>> Subject: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for
>> draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00
>>>>
>>>> Folks:
>>>>
>>>> The 00 draft of the PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results have been
>> uploaded.  I will be presenting the results at IETF80.
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-resu
>> lts/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> Christopher N. Del Regno, PMTS
>>>> C&T, Ethernet Network Architecture & Design
>>>> 400 International Pkwy
>>>> Richardson, TX  75081
>>>> 972-729-3411
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:16 AM
>>>> To: Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)
>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>> draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A new version of I-D,
>> draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00.txt has been successfully
>> submitted by Nick Del Regno and posted to the IETF repository.
>>>>
>>>> Filename:     draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results
>>>> Revision:     00
>>>> Title:         The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit
>> Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results
>>>> Creation_date:     2011-03-07
>>>> WG ID:         Independent Submission
>>>> Number_of_pages: 16
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>> Most Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate
>>>> the use of the Control Word (CW) in order to better emulate the
>>>> services for which the encapsulations have been defined.  However,
>>>> some encapulations treat the Control Word as optional.  As a result,
>>>> implementations of the CW, for encapsulations for which it is
>>>> optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment model and service
>>>> provider network.  Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity
>>>> Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) types and
>>>> multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types.  This flexibility has
>>>> led to reports of interoperability issues within deployed networks
>>>> and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the situation.  This
>>>> survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine
>>>> implementation trends.  The survey and results is presented herein.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF Secretariat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>