Re: [PWE3] Questions on draft-martini-pwe3-static-pw-status-02.txt

[Luca Martini <[e-mail]>]

Linda Dunbar wrote:
> With PW OAM message defined for static PW, can PW established by LDP also
> use this OAM message instead of the LDP notification message? 
>
>   
No.
This has been the case for the past 10 years, as defined in rfc4447.
The control plane is in control of the PW. So you cannot use a special 
channel to bypass the control plane.
Even the bypass message that is defined in this draft today does not 
work as mentioned. I believe we will be dropping that feature as it 
cannot be made to work without changing the basic design.
( we are missing the information about the origin on the message ).

I hope this helps.
Luca

> Linda 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:10 AM
> To: Linda Dunbar
> Cc: 'pwe3'
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Questions on draft-martini-pwe3-static-pw-status-02.txt
>
> Linda:
>
> It is explained in the introduction:
>
> The default control plane for Pseudowire (PW) technology, as defined in 
> [RFC4447], is based on LDP. However that document also describes a 
> static provisioning mode without control plane. When a static PW is used 
> , there is no method to transmit the status of the PW, or attachment 
> circuit (AC) between the two PEs at each end of the PW.
>
> I.e. when there is no LDP there is no current method of exchanging 
> status, so a new method is needed, and that is described in this document.
> .
> - Stewart
>
> Linda Dunbar wrote:
>   
>> The "draft-martini-pwe3-static-pw-status-02.txt" stated using ACH for
>> exchange PW OAM status. Is PW's ACH same as PW's VCCV? 
>>
>> The RFC 4447 described PW Status to be exchanged via LDP notification
>>     
> which
>   
>> is over TCP. I am just curious why the static PW can't use the PW Status
>>     
> via
>   
>> notification defined by RFC 4447?  
>>
>> Thank you very much. 
>>
>> Linda Dunbar
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Stewart Bryant
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:17 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: pwe3
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-martini-pwe3-static-pw-status-02.txt now WG
>>     
> draft
>   
>> I have seen a large number of accepts and no objections.
>>
>> Please will the authors resubmit this as a WG document.
>>
>> As discussed at the WG, will the authors please remove the reference to 
>> MPLS-TP. This work is useful in it's own right, and any applicability to 
>> MPLS-TP should be decided by the MPLS-TP project.
>>
>> - Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>> Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> This is a poll to see if
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-martini-pwe3-static-pw-status-02.txt
>>>
>>> should be accepted as a PWE3 WG draft.
>>>
>>> Please reply "accept" or "do not accept" to this thread.
>>>
>>> Please start a new thread on for technical discussions on the draft.
>>>
>>> In view of the timing of IETF, I will close the poll Sunday 22nd 
>>> November.
>>>
>>> - Stewart
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>
>>>     
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>
>>   
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>