RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

I would like to point out that the intent of the RFC 4447 text quoted 
by Peter was to ONLY allow PHP to be used on the physical link 
between the penultimate P router and the PE router where the PW 
terminates and connects with the attachment circuit.  In this one 
case only, the MPLS tunnel used to carry the PW terminates at the 
penultimate P router rather than at the PE router. It was not meant 
to be a general escape mechanism to allow the general use of PWs over 
tunneling mechanisms other than MPLS or L2TPv3.

Further, to quote the WG charter,

"Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) will specify the
encapsulation, transport, control, management, interworking and
security of services emulated over IETF specified PSNs."

Ethernet and SONET are not IETF specified PSNs.

So, while there may be value in supporting PWs over 
non-IETF-specified PSNs, I do agree with Stewart and Mark that a 
charter change will be necessary to pursue this work.

Cheers,
Andy

--------


At 3/5/2007 05:51 PM -0500, Shah, Himanshu wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C75F78.CAA52CEF"
>
>I believe this is a key point.
>In my view, discussions on in/out scope
>really does not apply (for the reasons
>described below). Also, note that as L2
>technology becomes more intelligent (eg. PBT),
>keeping it out-of-scope (artificially) would be
>a mistake.
>
>There are other docs (past/present), that already
>use this concept, such as dry martini,
>MEF3/8 (TDM-PWoETH, except ethType is different),
>pw-over-pbt, etc.
>
>IMO,
>himanshu
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) 
>[<mailto:[e-mail]>mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Mon 3/5/2007 5:24 PM
>To: Stewart Bryant; Mark Townsley
>Cc: pwe3
>Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt
>
>Dave Allan made a point that I believe is valid and makes this whole
>discussion irrelevant. To rephrase what he said:
>
>Page 4 of RFC 4447 says:
>
>    In the protocol specified herein, the pseudowire demultiplexor field
>    is an MPLS label.  Thus, the packets that are transmitted from one
>    end of the pseudowire to the other are MPLS packets, which must be
>    transmitted through an MPLS tunnel.  However, if the pseudowire
>    endpoints are immediately adjacent and penultimate hop popping
>    behavior is in use, the MPLS tunnel may not be necessary.
>
>Based on this logic, PWs can be carried over SDH, Ethernet or any other
>protocol that can carry MPLS packets without violating the PWE3 charter.
>
>Peter
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stewart Bryant [<mailto:[e-mail]>mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:35 PM
> > To: Mark Townsley
> > Cc: pwe3
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt
> >
> >
> > So the proposal seems to be that PWE3 extends VCCV for use
> > with a PWE3 PW over a non IP/MPLS PSN.
> >
> > We should put this on the agenda for Prague.
> >
> > - Stewart
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > 
> <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[e-mail]
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3