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

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?

Also, does the the changing of the control word from PREFERRED to
non-PREFERRED need to be considered as well?

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
>
>