Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01

Hi Edward,
See the comments in line. Thanks.

Lizhong

Ed <maillist.ed@gmail.com> wrote on 2010-11-25 08:47:30:

> Hi Raymond,
>  
> Option 1 seems to be simply to resignal the FEC - with the 
> corresponding traffic forwarding impact. Can PE2 send a new label 
> mapping with cbit=1 be sent without requiring label withdrawal 
> message and label request message, for example?
[Lizhong] maybe not allowed, for this behavior will break existing CW 
negotiation mechanism.

> 
> Also, does the the changing of the control word from PREFERRED to 
> non-PREFERRED need to be considered as well?
[Lizhong] good idea, should be considered in next version.

>  
> Thanks
>  
> Regards,
> Edward
> 
>  
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) 
<rrahman@cisco.com
> > wrote:
> I agree with Sami. Maybe the other options should be in appendix 
> with an explanation of why they were not chosen?
>  
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>  
> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Sami Boutros (sboutros)
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:11 AM
> To: Raymond Key; pwe3@ietf.org 
> 
> Cc: thomas.nadeau@huawei.com; lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn; 
vishwas@ipinfusion.com
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01 
>  
> I personally like option 1 in this draft, describing how to re-
> enable control word via dynamic LDP signaling.
> 
> However, you would need to clarify the steps more..
> saying in step 3 that PE2 MUST send a label request and in step 5 
> that PE1 MUST respond to the label request with the configured CW 
> setting on PE1 which was set, as well in step 6 PE2 MUST wait for 
> PE1 label binding before sending it's label binding with CW set.
> 
> As well, it may be good extending the flow chart described in 
> appendix A in rfc 4447 with option 1.
> 
> Not sure, if it is worth mentioning the other options since they have 
issues.
> 
> Option 2, how will we be able to re-enable CW? isn't that the issue 
> we are trying to fix?
> 
> Option 3, This is avoiding to solve the problem.
> 
> Option 4, I don't think this will fly.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sami
> At 01:53 AM 11/19/2010, Raymond Key wrote:

> Hi PWE3 working group,
>  
> In the recent IETF79, we have presented the draft "Pseudowire 
> Control Word Negotiation Mechanism Analysis and Update"  
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01 
>  
> This draft describes the problem of control word negotiation 
> mechanism specified in RFC4447. Based on the problem analysis, 
> possible solutions and their potential shortcomings are also discussed.
>  
> The authors would like to have more feedback from the mailing list 
> before working on the next version. Grateful if you could review the
> document and post comments on the mailing list.
>  
> Thanks,
> Raymond Key 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.