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

["David Zelig" <[e-mail]>]

Ken,
Please see inside
 
________________________________

From: Ken Young [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:23 PM
To: Ken Young; David Zelig; [e-mail]
Cc: Lyndon Ong; [e-mail]; Brian Smith; Chris Barrett
Subject: RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10



David,

 

As I previously stated, I checked into the view of this from the MEF.
The MEF is remaining at the services level.  As such, they define the
attributes of a particular service but not how it gets translated into a
particular technology such as pseudowires.  The MEF definition is also a
moving target.  

 

As such, I agree that we can not fix the change the scope of the current
PW-ENET MIB to align with the MEF.
[DZ] OK.

 

However, it should align with the requirements of RFC4448.  Section 4.7
and Appendix B state that an Ethernet flow can be mapped to a pseudowire
using the port, VLAN and p-bit values.  I would like to see this added
to the PW-ENET MIB.
[DZ] This functionality do not exist in any working implementation as
far as the authors know (also verified on the PWE3 list few months ago -
before we removed it). We believe that the MIB created by the group
should reflect current working practice.

 

Thanks

David

 

Thanks,

Ken

 

________________________________

From: Ken Young 
Sent: March 22, 2007 10:04 AM
To: David Zelig; [e-mail]
Cc: Lyndon Ong; [e-mail]; Brian Smith; Chris Barrett
Subject: RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10

 

David,

 

Thanks for resolving issue 1.  That gets the list down to 2 outstanding
issues.

 

I agree with your comments on issue 2.  L2CP discards should be
provisioned as part of the NSP.  Isn't that what the PW-ENET-MIB is
defining for these types of PWs?

 

I hear your point on the fact that there is no process between the MEF
and IETF on this issue.  I am going to raise this in the MEF technical
community and get back to list on this topic.

 

I personally believe this is important since the MEF is defining the
customer facing attributes of an Ethernet service offered by Service
providers.  We have customers demanding that we be MEF certified to be
able to sell our equipment.  I would prefer to use a standard MIB for
this since this is not any part of our secret sauce and I think other
companies will benefit.

 

My 2 cents,

Ken

 

________________________________

From: David Zelig [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thu 3/22/2007 08:18
To: Ken Young; [e-mail]
Cc: Lyndon Ong; [e-mail]; Brian Smith; Chris Barrett
Subject: RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10

Ken,
Please see inside.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Young [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:07 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Lyndon Ong; David Zelig; [e-mail]; 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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3