RE: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs

Tom and all,

Please see some comments inline below.
I've snipped the parts of the thread that are not related to tese comments to make the remainder more readable.

Regards,
                    Sasha

________________________________

From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
Sent: Thu 03/08/2006 22:54
To: Rahul Aggarwal
Cc: 'pwe3 WG ((((E-mail))))'; Mustapha Aissaoui; Sasha Vainshtein
Subject: Re: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs

... snipped ...
[Tom]        The motivation for the new encapsulation is not
based on a need to support static PWs. The motivation
for *removing* them from the spec. is that
that mode applies to static PWs only.

[Sasha] I agree that BFD with static codes only applies to manually provisioned PWs which are explicitly allowed by the PWE Requirements  (RFC 3916, Section 5.1, 2nd para) and Architecture(RFC 3985, Section 7.1 4th para) documents. I believe this addresses some of Rahul's questions.

I do NOT see, however, any linkage between manual provosioning of the PWs and absense/presense of UDP/IP headers in the VCCV encapsulation. These issues look completely orthogonal to me. 

In fact, my earlier question (Do or do not IP-free encaps for VCCV provide any additional OA&M functionality when comperaed with UDP/IP-based VCCV enacps?) that you've decided not to address looks even more meaningful to me now. 

[Tom] If you carefully read the document, you will find that BFD+status codes is not
applicable when signaling is in use. Therefore it makes no sense to signal that capability.

... snipped to the end ...