Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ECC93A6ADF for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:34:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WgRB32iFjT-y for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:34:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-px0-f172.google.com (mail-px0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68E228C0EB for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:34:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by pxi6 with SMTP id 6so216165pxi.31 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:35:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=p5EbsL4hPFpUL+sJiZX6C1U5VT6ILpgk5uCA7wjYYDk=; b=kAGbLm2DSmdDuvQNuMIW26KJWIpScDT+9JbboJfvZFQBtDbQfQUZE6PppvEFU8KuEP jj5MahkDTWrBIRkmcp3gG5WHYGbo92LobNIR9wqGdOczh2DKfrGzomfDkkpk4qpMrDSa f0r8/yZaoZUhzAteudbt9zgj9Q7MuMr/R7YdY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=YkQLgRl+t38CPmX5sPdym0qpkXvYz1bbiAKXvLk2WrQ3mGgN8FCpX218gyVw2/tX3H PoNNN4PbLmlaDHDf3pdGZTScMRlOtAuo/sz0Q8TeE46JPmNd9Hn0AGAp3YUf4+3W/Sgw J49EFEUVcIh7Q02XGqBosiJ3HaKLGiBHQ4Do8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.199.18 with SMTP id w18mr821947wff.326.1290692135813; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:35:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.4.12 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:35:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:05:35 +0530 Message-ID: From: venkatesan mahalingam To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd32d8c4504420495e0ae48 Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:34:43 -0000 --000e0cd32d8c4504420495e0ae48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Option 1: Control Word Re-Negotiation by Label Request looks good to me. I think, it is not violating any LDP Downstream Unsolicited Label Advertisement by sending label request message from PE2. I think, we may have similar issue in status TLV negotiation also. Thanks, Venkat. - *To*: Ed > - *Subject*: Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01 - *From*: lizhong.jin at zte.com.cn - *Date*: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:18:39 +0800 - *Cc*: vishwas at ipinfusion.com , pwe3 at ietf.org , thomas.nadeau at huawei.com - *Delivered-to*: pwe3 at core3.amsl.com - *In-reply-to*: > - *List-archive*: - *List-help*: > - *List-id*: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge - *List-post*: > - *List-subscribe*: , < mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> - *List-unsubscribe*: , < mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> ------------------------------ Hi Edward, See the comments in line. Thanks. Lizhong Ed wrote on 2010-11-25 08:47:30: > Hi Raymond, > > Option 1 seems to be simply to resignal the FEC - with the > corresponding traffic forwarding impact. Can PE2 send a new label > mapping with cbit=1 be sent without requiring label withdrawal > message and label request message, for example? [Lizhong] maybe not allowed, for this behavior will break existing CW negotiation mechanism. > > Also, does the the changing of the control word from PREFERRED to > non-PREFERRED need to be considered as well? [Lizhong] good idea, should be considered in next version. > > Thanks > > Regards, > Edward > > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) > wrote: > I agree with Sami. Maybe the other options should be in appendix > with an explanation of why they were not chosen? > > Regards, > Reshad. > > From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Sami Boutros (sboutros) > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:11 AM > To: Raymond Key; pwe3 at ietf.org > > Cc: thomas.nadeau at huawei.com; lizhong.jin at zte.com.cn; vishwas at ipinfusion.com > Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01 > > I personally like option 1 in this draft, describing how to re- > enable control word via dynamic LDP signaling. > > However, you would need to clarify the steps more.. > saying in step 3 that PE2 MUST send a label request and in step 5 > that PE1 MUST respond to the label request with the configured CW > setting on PE1 which was set, as well in step 6 PE2 MUST wait for > PE1 label binding before sending it's label binding with CW set. > > As well, it may be good extending the flow chart described in > appendix A in rfc 4447 with option 1. > > Not sure, if it is worth mentioning the other options since they have issues. > > Option 2, how will we be able to re-enable CW? isn't that the issue > we are trying to fix? > > Option 3, This is avoiding to solve the problem. > > Option 4, I don't think this will fly. > > Thanks, > > Sami > At 01:53 AM 11/19/2010, Raymond Key wrote: > Hi PWE3 working group, > > In the recent IETF79, we have presented the draft "Pseudowire > Control Word Negotiation Mechanism Analysis and Update" > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01 > > This draft describes the problem of control word negotiation > mechanism specified in RFC4447. Based on the problem analysis, > possible solutions and their potential shortcomings are also discussed. > > The authors would like to have more feedback from the mailing list > before working on the next version. Grateful if you could review the > document and post comments on the mailing list. > > Thanks, > Raymond Key > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3 at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3 at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 --000e0cd32d8c4504420495e0ae48 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
Option 1: Control Word Re-Negotiation by Label Request looks go= od to me.
I think, it is not violating any LDP Downstream Unsolicited L= abel Advertisement by sending label request message from PE2.
=A0
I think, we may have similar issue in status TLV negotiation also.
=A0
Thanks,
Venkat.

Hi Edward,
See the comments in line. Thanks.
Lizhong


Ed <maillist.ed at gmail.com= > wrote on 2010-11-25 08:47:30:

> Hi Raymond,
> =A0
> Option 1 seems to be simply to resignal t= he FEC - with the
> corresponding traffic forwarding impact. Can PE2= send a new=A0label
> mapping with cbit=3D1 be sent without requiring label withdrawal
&= gt; message and label request message, for example?
[Lizhong] maybe not allowed, for this behavior will break exi= sting CW negotiation mechanism.

>
> Also, does the the changing of the c= ontrol word from PREFERRED to
> non-PREFERRED need to be considered = as well?
[Lizhong] good idea, should b= e considered in next version.

> =A0
>= Thanks
> =A0
<= font size=3D"2">> Regards,
> Edw= ard
>
> =A0
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman= at cisco.com
> > wrote:
> I agree with Sami. Maybe the other options should= be in appendix
> with an explanation of why they were not chosen?
> =A0
> Regards,
> Reshad.
>= =A0
> From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:= pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of =
> Sami Boutros (sboutros)
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:11= AM
> To: Raymond Key; pwe3 at ietf.org
>
> Cc: thomas.nadeau at = huawei.com; lizhong.jin at zte.com.cn; vishwas at ipinfusion.com
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiati= on-01
> =A0
> I personally like option 1 in this draft, describing how= to re-
> enable control word via dynamic LDP signaling.
>
> Howeve= r, you would need to clarify the steps more..
> saying in step 3 that= PE2 MUST send a label request and in step 5
> that PE1 MUST respond= to the label request with the configured CW
> setting on PE1 which was set, as well in step 6 PE2 MUST wait for
= > PE1 label binding before sending it's label binding with CW set.>
> As well, it may be good extending the flow chart described = in
> appendix A in rfc 4447 with option 1.
>
> Not sure, if it= is worth mentioning the other options since they have issues.
>
= > Option 2, how will we be able to re-enable CW? isn't that the issu= e
> we are trying to fix?
>
> Option 3, This is avoiding to s= olve the problem.
>
> Option 4, I don't think this will fl= y.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sami
> At 01:53 AM 11/19= /2010, Raymond Key wrote:

> Hi PWE3 working group,
> = =A0
> In the recent IETF79, we have presented the draft "Pseudow= ire
> Control Word Negotiation Mechanism Analysis and Update"= =A0
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01
&= gt; =A0
> This draft describes the problem of control word negotiatio= n
> mechanism specified in RFC4447. Based on the problem analysis,
>= ; possible solutions and their potential shortcomings are also discussed.> =A0
> The authors would like to have more feedback from the ma= iling list
> before working on the next version. Grateful if you could review the> document and post comments on the mailing list.
> =A0
> = Thanks,
> Raymond Key
> ______________________________________= _________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org=
> https:/= /www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> =A0
>
> ________________________________________= _______
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

--000e0cd32d8c4504420495e0ae48--