Re: [PWE3] CW usage in opposite directions for static PWs

Stewart,
You've written:

<quote>
For LDP signaled PWs, I don't think there is any ambiguity, the CW
handling is symmetric. Does anyone read it any other way?
<end quote>

This matches my reading exactly, and this is why I would oppose allowing asymmetric CW usage for static PWs: I do not think that it is healthy to allow operational static PWs that cannot be ever signaled.
(I do not object to having *non-operational* static PWs that, if signaled, would never be set up:-).

My 2c,
     Sasha
________________________________________
From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Stewart Bryant [stbryant@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:14 PM
To: Andrew G. Malis
Cc: Lizhong Jin; pwe3@ietf.org; Yaakov Stein
Subject: Re: [PWE3] CW usage in opposite directions for static PWs

On 10/04/2012 17:08, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> All,
>
> This has been an extremely useful discussion.
>
> <wg chair hat off>
>
> Personally, I don't really see much utility in asymmetric CWs in a PW.
>
> <wg chair hat on>
>
> Once the WG comes to consensus on the issue one way or the other (and
> I would like to hear some more opinions), we should consider document
> revisions as necessary to make sure that the consensus is clearly
> reflected in the RFCs.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy

For LDP signaled PWs, I don't think there is any ambiguity, the CW
handling is symmetric. Does anyone read it any other way?

Stewart

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.