Re: [PWE3] Mandatory Control Word

[Ignacio Goyret <[e-mail]>]

+1

At 02:35 PM 10/26/2010 -0400, Shah, Himanshu wrote:
>I do kind of agree with Stuart's assessment, AD or not... :-)
>
>IMHO,
>/himanshu
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Nadeau
>
>        Is this your personal opinion speaking as a vendor with lots of
>said equipment, or as an AD?
>
>        --Tom
>
>
>
>> From
>> 
>> draft-delregno-pwe3-mandatory-control-word/
>> 
>> =======
>> 2.  Mandatory Control Word
>> 
>>   The Control Word SHALL be mandatory for all PWE3 encapsulations.
>The
>>   use of the sequence number remains OPTIONAL.
>> 
>>   As a result of the Control Word being Mandatory, all implementations
>>   of the PWE3 encapsulations SHALL follow Section 6.1 of [RFC4447]
>>   wherein the "PWs MUST have c=1".  This requirement SHALL remain
>until
>>   such time, if ever, RFC4447 is superceded and the support for
>Control
>>   Word negotiation is removed as a result of this mandate.
>> 
>> ======
>> 
>> Given the reality of network deployments I do not see how we can
>> talk about removing the requirement to negotiate the CW in any
>> realistic time frame.
>> 
>> It's fine to require the CW for all new PW types, and it's
>> probably OK to RECOMMEND operation with the CW, but it's
>> unrealistic to remove the option given the extent of the deployed
>> systems.
>> 
>> - Stewart