Re: [PWE3] CW usage in opposite directions for static PWs

Lizhong Jin<lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn> Mon, 09 April 2012 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn>
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 1907211E8076 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.838
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 jALsjpC8lDVw for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE6411E8074 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.164.15] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 621291397396305; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:17:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.164.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 14085.2928413318; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:02:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q397I3b6053771; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:18:04 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.41.1333911625.30882.pwe3@ietf.org>
To: pwe3@ietf.org, yaakov_s@rad.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OFB5E78440.01AFE71E-ON482579DB.00275F00-482579DB.00281BA8@zte.com.cn>
From: Lizhong Jin <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:18:02 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2012-04-09 15:18:06, Serialize complete at 2012-04-09 15:18:06
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00281BA7482579DB_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q397I3b6053771
Subject: Re: [PWE3] CW usage in opposite directions for static PWs
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: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 07:18:16 -0000

Hi Yaakov,
Sorry, word mistake. It should not be OR, but AND operation. If one side 
support and the other side not, then CW will not be used. Then the result 
will be aligned with RFC4447.

Regards
Lizhong

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:28:52 +0000
> From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>
> To: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
> Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] CW usage in opposite directions for static PWs
> Message-ID:
>    <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC904363878@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Lizhong
> 
> Of course each side needs to KNOW if the other side is using a CW or 
not;
> but, that does not mean they can not be asymmetric.
> 
> What do you mean by OR - that if either CAN use a CW then both MUST use?
> This is the opposite of 4447.
> 
> 
> Y(J)S
> 
> From: Lizhong Jin [mailto:lizho.jin@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 05:58
> To: Yaakov Stein
> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] CW usage in opposite directions for static PWs
> 
> Hi Yaakov,
> Thanks for the comments during the session of PWE3.
> For the static PW, the CW usage should be consisted, otherwise the 
> packet processing would be wrong. The CW nibble is not enough to 
> identify a ACH, and "PW label + CW nibble" is used to identify ACH. 
> IMO, the static PW CW capability could be got by "OR" operation of 
> both local and remote CW parameters.
> 
> Thanks
> Lizhong
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:44:56 +0000
> From: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com<mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com>>
> To: "pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>" 
<pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org
> >>
> Subject: [PWE3] CW usage in opposite directions for static PWs
> Message-ID:
>        <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC904332092@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il<
> mailto:07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC904332092@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> At the meeting I promised to check when this issue in the subject 
> line was last discussed.
> 
> It was only a short while ago in Prague (see http://www.ietf.
> org/proceedings/80/slides/pwe3-3.pdf slides 9 - 11<http://www.ietf.
> org/proceedings/80/slides/pwe3-3.pdf%20slides%209%20-%2011>).
> 
> I recall a lively discussion after the presentation,
> but the minutes do not show resolution of the issue of whether a CW 
> MUST be used or not used
> in both directions for PWs not set up using the PWE3 control protocol.
> 
> Y(J)S
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20120408/488442e2/attachment.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> ________