Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with draft-pw-redundancy-bit
Samer Salam <ssalam@cisco.com> Thu, 15 March 2012 17:25 UTC
Return-Path: <ssalam@cisco.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 91F3A21F87BD for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.833
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.833 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
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 jYOczHDpq7BL for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B957921F87B3 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ssalam@cisco.com; l=4334; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331832358; x=1333041958; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=bS1pN5ORS328EnmxwkFEaCERO28LgnBAT/1ZoOPNCW8=; b=JrOcIanTE+t9gAxGm3OEsu53EnET8nczX+0681fvTQy0G6GTOzUC975q Mop56GWcVz/AgsNDAZ1gpKrmX07WtRGGH0ezNq/li7wzVVrXb25/Cy6vb I/V/PydIeMkoC7vSrjKxBJoOjIGPhi+r7pmH3+XIwS4XxDv98S4Zx16db I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak0JAIMlYk+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABDgk6yb3MCgQeCCQEBAQMBAQEBDwEqMRANAQgEaTABAQQBEiKHYwQBC51Ily0EkQcEiFeNCo4/J4FBgwc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.73,592,1325462400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="36290107"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2012 17:25:58 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2FHPwPQ020471; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:25:58 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-233.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.88]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:25:58 -0700
Received: from 161.44.207.8 ([161.44.207.8]) by xmb-sjc-233.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.88]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:25:57 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.27.0.100910
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:25:56 -0800
From: Samer Salam <ssalam@cisco.com>
To: Daniel Cohn <DanielC@orckit.com>, pwe3@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CB877434.238BD%ssalam@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with draft-pw-redundancy-bit
Thread-Index: Ac0CqH/qtyJRd8+JRXuyEnS5aYeGKQAKC4h9
In-Reply-To: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA081307670E33@tlvmail1>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3414651956_183187746"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2012 17:25:58.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[AF800BF0:01CD02D0]
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 17:25:59 -0000
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] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with draf… Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with … Samer Salam
- Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with … Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with … Lizhong Jin
- Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp interaction with … Luca Martini