Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00

Tom:

Please pose that question to the WG (maybe that's what you were doing).
When we crafted the survey, omitting BFD was an oversight.  However, the
list of questions was sent to the WG for comment before the survey was
conducted.  If the WG would like, I can contact the respondents directly
to inquire of their BFD usage as well.  However, I don't think the
survey should be reopened.

Thanks,
Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Luca Martini
Cc: Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno); Yaakov Stein; pwe3
Subject: Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00

	One thing I'd ask is that we augment the survey to ask about the
BFD mode for 
VCCV. It seems to have been left out of the survey, potentially skewing
the results. 
As I understand it, this is the most popular mode.

	--Tom

On Mar 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Luca Martini wrote:

> Nick,
> Good survey, thanks for the work.
> 
> Are we going to publish this as informational ?
> I think we should .
> Also there is a mention of AToM in section 2.7 item 5 . It should be
> changed to PWE ( AToM is a cisco marketing term , so we want o keep
this
> anonymous )
> Thanks.
> Luca
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/15/2011 09:41 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
>> Nick, 
>> 
>> In section 2.2 the percentages make sense under the assumption of 18
respondents :
>> 5.6%   =  1 / 18
>> 11.1%  =  2 / 18
>> 16.7%  =  3 / 18
>> 22.2%  =  4 / 18
>> 44.4%  =  8 / 18
>> 77.8%  = 14 / 18 
>> 
>> but section 2.1 only lists 17 :
>> 1.	Time Warner Cable
>> 2.	Bright House Networks
>> 3.	Tinet
>> 4.	AboveNet
>> 5.	Telecom New Zealand
>> 6.	Cox Communications
>> 7.	MTN South Africa
>> 8.	Wipro Technologies
>> 9.	Verizon
>> 10.	AMS-IX
>> 11.	Superonline
>> 12.	Deutsche Telekom AG
>> 13.	Internet Solution
>> 14.	Easynet Global Services
>> 15.	Telstra Corporation
>> 16.	OJSC MegaFon
>> 17.	France Telecom Orange
>> 
>> Did you leave someone off, or did someone answer twice ?
>> 
>> Y(J)S
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 16:27
>> To: pwe3
>> Subject: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00
>> 
>> Folks:
>> 
>> The 00 draft of the PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results have been
uploaded.  I will be presenting the results at IETF80.
>> 
>>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-resu
lts/
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>> 
>> Christopher N. Del Regno, PMTS
>> C&T, Ethernet Network Architecture & Design
>> 400 International Pkwy
>> Richardson, TX  75081
>> 972-729-3411
>> nick.delregno@verizon.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:idsubmission@ietf.org] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:16 AM
>> To: Delregno, Christopher N (Nick DelRegno)
>> Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00
>> 
>> 
>> A new version of I-D,
draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00.txt has been successfully
submitted by Nick Del Regno and posted to the IETF repository.
>> 
>> Filename:	 draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results
>> Revision:	 00
>> Title:		 The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results
>> Creation_date:	 2011-03-07
>> WG ID:		 Independent Submission
>> Number_of_pages: 16
>> 
>> Abstract:
>> Most Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate
>> the use of the Control Word (CW) in order to better emulate the
>> services for which the encapsulations have been defined.  However,
>> some encapulations treat the Control Word as optional.  As a result,
>> implementations of the CW, for encapsulations for which it is
>> optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment model and service
>> provider network.  Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity
>> Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) types and
>> multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types.  This flexibility has
>> led to reports of interoperability issues within deployed networks
>> and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the situation.  This
>> survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine
>> implementation trends.  The survey and results is presented herein.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF Secretariat.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> pwe3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> pwe3@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 