[PWE3] RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10

"David Zelig" <Davidz@corrigent.com> Thu, 22 March 2007 12:18 UTC

Return-path: <pwe3-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUMFu-0007hi-L8; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:18:58 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUMFt-0007hd-6o for pwe3@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:18:57 -0400
Received: from tlvmail1.corrigent.com ([213.31.203.2]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HUMFr-0006xp-Px for pwe3@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:18:57 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:18:54 +0200
Message-ID: <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA0813A7827A@tlvmail1.corrigent.com>
In-Reply-To: <941E166DB8C7F543B1FDDE0D8CAF29497F49DE@ATL1VEXC010.usdom003.tco.tc>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10
Thread-Index: AcdrOqUbbt9xtCe8QZmvkHqSjstkJwBPPsFw
References: <941E166DB8C7F543B1FDDE0D8CAF29497F49DE@ATL1VEXC010.usdom003.tco.tc>
From: David Zelig <Davidz@corrigent.com>
To: Ken Young <KenY@gridpointsystems.com>, pwe3@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15
Cc: Lyndon Ong <lyong@ciena.com>, Brian Smith <BrianS@gridpointsystems.com>, Chris Barrett <ChrisB@gridpointsystems.com>, tnadeau@cisco.com
Subject: [PWE3] RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org

Ken,
Please see inside. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Young [mailto:KenY@gridpointsystems.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:07 AM
To: pwe3@ietf.org
Cc: Lyndon Ong; David Zelig; tnadeau@cisco.com; Brian Smith; Chris
Barrett
Subject: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10

All,
 
Since the PW-ENET MIB is heading for last call, I reviewed the MIB
today.  I realised that the MIB does not comply to the MEF's view of
Ethernet E-line services.  For more information on this definition,
please refer to: 
 
http://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDFs/Standards/Overview_of_MEF_6_and_1
0.ppt
<https://webaccess.hostedmail.net/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.m
etroethernetforum.org/PDFs/Standards/Overview_of_MEF_6_and_10.ppt> 
 
I realise that this was not the stated intention of the MIB but I would
like to see the gaps closed.  Note that I believe this gap is small.  We
only need to address 3 issues:
 
1/  defining a default VLAN for the untagged and priority packets (this
may already be possible) 
[DZ] Assigning a PW for the default VLAN and priority tagged packets can
be supported by the PW-ENET-STD-MIB. 

2/  define how L2CP protocols are handled (right now they are
tunnelled).  We need to add the capability to discard L2CP packets.  I
believe this is desirable on a per L2CP basis but I need to verify this.
[DZ] I think that this part of the functionality is part of the NSP
function. In addition, the MEF may change the specifications at any
time, and there is no mutual process to synchronize the specifications.

3/  define a way to map p-bit / vlans to a PW.  The rest are discarded.
[DZ] I believe that this functionality is out of the scope of the PWE3
group (and as such from PWE3 MIB modules). Note also that traffic
descriptors at the PW level (as exist in the MEF) are not defined as QOS
issues are not defined within the group.

 
I need to review this in more detail to make sure these are the only
gaps.  However, before I went through this effort, I wanted to bring
this issue to the list.
 
Do we see MEF compliance as an objective of the PW-ENET service?
[DZ] There is no mutual process between the MEF and IETF to adjust the
specifications. The MIB modules are derived from IETF specifications. If
the specifications will changed, than we can adapt the MIB modules.

Thanks
David
 
Please let me know,
Ken


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3