[PWE3] clarification on draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-02.txt

Keng Lim <Keng.Lim@ecitele.com> Wed, 23 January 2008 15:57 UTC

Return-path: <pwe3-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHhyt-0000hS-Jd; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:57:39 -0500
Received: from pwe3 by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JHhys-0000hN-Pg for pwe3-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:57:38 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHhys-0000hF-Fd for pwe3@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:57:38 -0500
Received: from eci-iron1.ecitele.com ([147.234.242.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHhys-0003Er-1i for pwe3@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:57:38 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO ILPTAM01.ecitele.com) ([147.234.244.44]) by eci-iron1.ecitele.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2008 18:18:30 +0200
Received: from ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ([147.234.245.181]) by ILPTAM01.ecitele.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:57:36 +0200
Received: from ILPTMAIL01.ecitele.com (147.234.245.210) by ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com (147.234.245.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.240.5; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:57:36 +0200
Received: from USPITMAIL01.ecitele.com ([10.0.0.81]) by ILPTMAIL01.ecitele.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:57:35 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:57:33 -0500
Message-ID: <1DF5AFE1FB996947A43DB4285C87645DBDB737@USPITMAIL01.ecitele.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: clarification on draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-02.txt
Thread-Index: Achd2Kpjk/+uR2JNSrm/EHC6ZTE0Vw==
From: Keng Lim <Keng.Lim@ecitele.com>
To: pwe3@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2008 15:57:35.0924 (UTC) FILETIME=[ABF37F40:01C85DD8]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Subject: [PWE3] clarification on draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-02.txt
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org

hi,

I am seeking some clarification on this draft.

1) in the beginning of section 5, the draft states that the preferential
forwarding bit is set to indicate Standby state, but later in draft in
section 5.3.1.e and 5.3.2.a.ii, the usage seem to have been reversed;
i.e. the latter paragraphs seem to suggest that when the preferential
bit is set, the PW is in Active state. Is there a contradiction here or
am I reading it wrong?

2) in section 5.3, The first sentence of the first paragraph states
"There are PW redundancy applications which require that PE/T-PE nodes
coordinate the switchover to a PW/MS-PW path such that both endpoints
will be forwarding over the same path at any given time."

Isn't that an implicit requirement for all PW redundancy applications
based on definition given in section 4. regarding what Active and
Standby state means? If there are PW redundancy applications where
forwarding at both endpoints can be on different paths, what would those
scenarios be?

thanks,
keng


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3