Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with draft-pw-redundancy-bit

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Thu, 15 March 2012 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
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 91B1A21F87D6 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 2W5BdaHwJ36b for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77E321F87C9 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.100.69.52] (unknown [141.202.11.155]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72071908BD; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:28:15 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AAC0DDE3-1F94-4B58-86AF-8DB9BB3D6316"
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB877434.238BD%ssalam@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:28:15 -0400
Message-Id: <ED28AD58-FC27-4957-AC3F-9D63BFC2BDB7@lucidvision.com>
References: <CB877434.238BD%ssalam@cisco.com>
To: Samer Salam <ssalam@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with draft-pw-redundancy-bit
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:28:17 -0000

	We should probably also add a reference to the redundancy bit draft as well.

	--Tom


On Mar 15, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Samer Salam wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
> 
> The ICCP draft does assume the use of the pw-redundancy-bit draft. Section 9.1.3 describes two modes of operation (depending on configuration):
> 
> - When an external AC redundancy mechanism is in use, and is being synchronized among the PEs via ICCP. In this mode, PW state is not synchronized via ICCP and the Independent Mode of operation is used for PW state signaling. This guarantees that the AC and PW states are always in sync for a given PE (to avoid deadlock).
> 
> - When an external AC redundancy mechanism is not in use, then PW state is synchronized via ICCP. In this mode, either the Independent mode or the Master/Slave mode could be used for PW state signaling.
> 
> We will add clarifications to that effect in a future revision.
> 
> Regards,
> Samer
> 
> 
> On 12-03-15 4:38 AM, "Daniel Cohn" <DanielC@orckit.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp authors and list at large,
>>  
>> Is there a reason why the ICCP draft does not explicit reference the pw redundancy draft? It does mention active/standby signaling for the PWs, so implicitly it seems to assume that the other endpoint is implementing draft-pw-redundancy-bit, but in that case some details are missing such as which pw redundancy mode should be used (e.g. master/slave), how PW precedence should be configured, etc.
>>  
>> Is this something you plan to add in future revisions?
>>  
>> Thanks,
>>  
>> Daniel
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> pwe3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3