Re: [PWE3] pwe3 Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com> Fri, 16 March 2012 15:03 UTC
Return-Path: <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E784921F8735; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.315
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.315 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KygDOVTkmqdv; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F2B21F86B2; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenm5 with SMTP id m5so4870458yen.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jemDan+3Uv2Bda6S1rHfrTbc/5+AZsWfeO/icFUAgvw=; b=nD5KP3KlyYRr+MuPbvj16sJHUeZgmPaBDYkDE0JC7OSvlyLaTRFxDe9FTLpTb0aZOT fsgSN1JyCjVvUx2bnKV8Hwo/J/RNIs7SOzYgDHcYl6Zkr/qoaPvgBBMP0E+UNlJPBmk4 VAFXi1qHPSddi1K7k54NJKJkOOGjArRv6lYwIb3YGbhVsYzsCEkw7CSaSNlIb8W2bHIs S6krDNlK1xKPMT4+lrrLe0/TRFoy3iXg84/P14nAY1hS27PBGefQvDyXGnA1XPaauPoL urKd0efRnEK7tpFdjNIh2H41VGDFIwtdPRSHmEeIkeXit7M3LlaIArpVHxq5ZDVSg9KK OdJQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.7.7 with SMTP id f7mr3419371oea.19.1331910198325; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.39.129 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2353.1331837108.3360.pwe3@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.2353.1331837108.3360.pwe3@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:03:17 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH==cJztkfFcK42UPkBBUKM7YWE6cD5LGCodNSqCW2DUt_cWRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
To: ssalam@cisco.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1f2fc3e719304bb5d8262"
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] pwe3 Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:03:20 -0000
> > > The ICCP draft does assume the use of the pw-redundancy-bit draft. Section > 9.1.3 describes two modes of operation (depending on configuration): > > - When an external AC redundancy mechanism is in use, and is being > synchronized among the PEs via ICCP. In this mode, PW state is not > synchronized via ICCP and the Independent Mode of operation is used for PW > state signaling. This guarantees that the AC and PW states are always in > sync for a given PE (to avoid deadlock). > > - When an external AC redundancy mechanism is not in use, then PW state is > synchronized via ICCP. In this mode, either the Independent mode or the > Master/Slave mode could be used for PW state signaling. > [Lizhong] and if independent mode is applied, the the operator MUST be care to configure same high/low PW priority at two end-points of active/standby PW, otherwise, will result two standby PW. More details are in draft-liu-l2vpn-vpls-inter-domain-redundancy-02 section 5. Regards Lizhong We will add clarifications to that effect in a future revision. Regards, Samer On 12-03-15 4:38 AM, "Daniel Cohn" <DanielC@orckit.com> wrote: > Hi draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp authors and list at large, > > Is there a reason why the ICCP draft does not explicit reference the pw > redundancy draft? It does mention active/standby signaling for the PWs, so > implicitly it seems to assume that the other endpoint is implementing > draft-pw-redundancy-bit, but in that case some details are missing such as > which pw redundancy mode should be used (e.g. master/slave), how PW precedence > should be configured, etc. > > Is this something you plan to add in future revisions? > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: < http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20120315/91462e58/attachment.htm > ------------------------------
- Re: [PWE3] pwe3 Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11 Lizhong Jin