RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta
Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Thu, 27 December 2007 11:52 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 1J7rHi-0007hX-Qu; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:52:22 -0500
Received: from pwe3 by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J7rHh-0007gp-CQ for pwe3-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:52:21 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7rHg-0007ee-TD for pwe3@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:52:20 -0500
Received: from eci-iron1.ecitele.com ([147.234.242.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7rHf-00007i-Jm for pwe3@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:52:20 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO ILPTAM01.ecitele.com) ([147.234.244.44]) by eci-iron1.ecitele.com with ESMTP; 27 Dec 2007 14:06:10 +0200
Received: from ilptexch01.ecitele.com ([172.31.244.40]) by ILPTAM01.ecitele.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:52:18 +0200
Received: from ILPTMAIL01.ecitele.com (147.234.245.210) by ilptexch01.ecitele.com (172.31.244.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.240.5; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:52:17 +0200
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:52:16 +0200
Message-ID: <64122293A6365B4A9794DC5636F9ACFD0252EE2A@ilptex01.ecitele.com>
In-Reply-To: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D05FA4F8C@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta
Thread-Index: AchIfSJbSRsrzEjmQvK3SviAkQnm5wAAM97A
References: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D05FA4F8C@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Dec 2007 11:52:18.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE70ACE0:01C8487E]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: dd7e0c3fd18d19cffdd4de99a114001d
Cc: Keren Zik-Meirom <keren_z@rad.com>, pwe3@ietf.org
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0178863631=="
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Yaakov and all, The cited section defines two PW states: <quote> o Active State A PW is considered to be in Active state when the PW labels are exchanged between its two endpoints in control plane, and the status bits exchanged between the endpoints indicate the PW is UP and Active at both endpoints. In this state user traffic can flow over the PW in both directions. o Standby State A PW is considered to be in Standby state when the PW labels are exchanged between its two endpoints in the control plane, but the status bits exchanged indicate the PW is in Standby state at one or both endpoints. In this state the endpoints MUST NOT forward data traffic over the PW but MAY allow PW OAM packets, e.g., VCCV, to be sent and received in order to test the liveliness of standby PWs <end quote> My conclusion from these definitions is that, in the scenario described in Yaakov's message, both PWs shall be in the Standby state (without any flapping) because each one shall be declared as Standby by one of the EPs. As a consequence, no traffic will be forwarded to any of the two PWs. Did I miss something? Regards, Sasha ________________________________ From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:39 PM To: pwe3@ietf.org Cc: Keren Zik-Meirom Subject: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta Hi all (and especially co-authors of draft-muley-dutta) Section 4.1. (Independent Mode) In draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-02 <http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-b it/rfcmarkup?repository=/away/ietf&url=/away/ietf/all-ids/draft-muley-du tta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-02.txt> says: PW endpoint nodes independently select which PW they intend to make active and which PWs they intend to make standby. They advertise the corresponding Active/Standby forwarding state for each PW. Each PW endpoint compares local and remote status and uses the PW that is operationally UP at both endpoints and that shows Active states at both the local and remote endpoint. After which there is a discussion about what happens if an active PW is not found. I have a question about what happens when there are two perfectly good PWs. What happens if initially the two endpoints choose different PWs as the active ones ? I am assuming that an endpoint, seeing that the other declares the PW it intended as backup to be the active one, then chooses to switch and sends an active indication on the other PW. Meanwhile the other endpoint does the same, causing infinite flapping. Did I misunderstand something ? Y(J)S
_______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
- [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draf… Yaakov Stein
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … Alexander Vainshtein
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … Yaakov Stein
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … Alexander Vainshtein
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … MULEY Praveen
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … MULEY Praveen