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

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Andy, Tom, Nick and all,
I support Tom's suggestion. 

I would also like to suggest one more extension to the survey.

In its present form, it says how many *operators* can use CW in this or that PW type where it is optional, and how many *operators* actually use it - again, per PW type. It also says how many PWs of this or that type have been actually deployed.

IMHO and FWIW, it would be most helpful if we could have the information about the number of *PW instances* that use (or do not use) an optional  CW - again, per PW type.


Regards,
     Sasha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Andrew G. Malis
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 6:57 PM
> To: Thomas Nadeau
> Cc: Luca Martini; Yaakov Stein; pwe3
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-delregno-pw-
> vccv-impl-survey-results-00
> 
> Are there any objections in the WG to Tom's suggestion?
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Thomas Nadeau
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > That's precisely what I'm asking for: for the wg to agree to augment
> the existing survey with a short additional one that focuses in the
> missing bfd mode only.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On Mar 17, 2011, at 12:03 PM, "Delregno, Christopher N (Nick
> DelRegno)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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:[e-mail]]
> >> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>> 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
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> pwe3 mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> pwe3 mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3