[PWE3] RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10
"Ken Young" <KenY@gridpointsystems.com> Wed, 04 April 2007 14:24 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 1HZ6PI-00014V-2O; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:24:16 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ6PG-00014I-7h for pwe3@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:24:14 -0400
Received: from out001.iad.hostedmail.net ([209.225.56.23]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HZ6PB-0005GU-K7 for pwe3@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:24:14 -0400
Received: from ATL1VEXC010.usdom003.tco.tc ([10.158.7.18]) by out001.iad.hostedmail.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:24:04 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:23:09 -0400
Message-ID: <941E166DB8C7F543B1FDDE0D8CAF29490693884E@ATL1VEXC010.usdom003.tco.tc>
In-Reply-To: <941E166DB8C7F543B1FDDE0D8CAF29497F49F8@ATL1VEXC010.usdom003.tco.tc>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10
Thread-Index: AcdrOqUbbt9xtCe8QZmvkHqSjstkJwBPPsFwAAQnjcQCjknSgA==
References: <941E166DB8C7F543B1FDDE0D8CAF29497F49DE@ATL1VEXC010.usdom003.tco.tc> <44F4E579A764584EA9BDFD07D0CA0813A7827A@tlvmail1.corrigent.com> <941E166DB8C7F543B1FDDE0D8CAF29497F49F8@ATL1VEXC010.usdom003.tco.tc>
From: Ken Young <KenY@gridpointsystems.com>
To: Ken Young <KenY@gridpointsystems.com>, David Zelig <Davidz@corrigent.com>, pwe3@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2007 14:24:04.0932 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6179040:01C776C4]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7f3077fcbbd2d4a1504dfa044ebcf773
Cc: Lyndon Ong <lyong@ciena.com>, Brian Smith <BrianS@gridpointsystems.com>, Chris Barrett <ChrisB@gridpointsystems.com>, tnadeau@cisco.com
Subject: [PWE3] RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10
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="===============0841814888=="
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
David, As I previously stated, I checked into the view of this from the MEF. The MEF is remaining at the services level. As such, they define the attributes of a particular service but not how it gets translated into a particular technology such as pseudowires. The MEF definition is also a moving target. As such, I agree that we can not fix the change the scope of the current PW-ENET MIB to align with the MEF. However, it should align with the requirements of RFC4448. Section 4.7 and Appendix B state that an Ethernet flow can be mapped to a pseudowire using the port, VLAN and p-bit values. I would like to see this added to the PW-ENET MIB. Thanks, Ken ________________________________ From: Ken Young Sent: March 22, 2007 10:04 AM To: David Zelig; pwe3@ietf.org Cc: Lyndon Ong; tnadeau@cisco.com; Brian Smith; Chris Barrett Subject: RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10 David, Thanks for resolving issue 1. That gets the list down to 2 outstanding issues. I agree with your comments on issue 2. L2CP discards should be provisioned as part of the NSP. Isn't that what the PW-ENET-MIB is defining for these types of PWs? I hear your point on the fact that there is no process between the MEF and IETF on this issue. I am going to raise this in the MEF technical community and get back to list on this topic. I personally believe this is important since the MEF is defining the customer facing attributes of an Ethernet service offered by Service providers. We have customers demanding that we be MEF certified to be able to sell our equipment. I would prefer to use a standard MIB for this since this is not any part of our secret sauce and I think other companies will benefit. My 2 cents, Ken ________________________________ From: David Zelig [mailto:Davidz@corrigent.com] Sent: Thu 3/22/2007 08:18 To: Ken Young; pwe3@ietf.org Cc: Lyndon Ong; tnadeau@cisco.com; Brian Smith; Chris Barrett Subject: RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10 Ken, Please see inside. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Young [mailto:KenY@gridpointsystems.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:07 AM To: pwe3@ietf.org Cc: Lyndon Ong; David Zelig; tnadeau@cisco.com; Brian Smith; Chris Barrett Subject: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10 All, Since the PW-ENET MIB is heading for last call, I reviewed the MIB today. I realised that the MIB does not comply to the MEF's view of Ethernet E-line services. For more information on this definition, please refer to: http://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDFs/Standards/Overview_of_MEF_6_and_1 0.ppt <https://webaccess.hostedmail.net/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.m etroethernetforum.org/PDFs/Standards/Overview_of_MEF_6_and_10.ppt> I realise that this was not the stated intention of the MIB but I would like to see the gaps closed. Note that I believe this gap is small. We only need to address 3 issues: 1/ defining a default VLAN for the untagged and priority packets (this may already be possible) [DZ] Assigning a PW for the default VLAN and priority tagged packets can be supported by the PW-ENET-STD-MIB. 2/ define how L2CP protocols are handled (right now they are tunnelled). We need to add the capability to discard L2CP packets. I believe this is desirable on a per L2CP basis but I need to verify this. [DZ] I think that this part of the functionality is part of the NSP function. In addition, the MEF may change the specifications at any time, and there is no mutual process to synchronize the specifications. 3/ define a way to map p-bit / vlans to a PW. The rest are discarded. [DZ] I believe that this functionality is out of the scope of the PWE3 group (and as such from PWE3 MIB modules). Note also that traffic descriptors at the PW level (as exist in the MEF) are not defined as QOS issues are not defined within the group. I need to review this in more detail to make sure these are the only gaps. However, before I went through this effort, I wanted to bring this issue to the list. Do we see MEF compliance as an objective of the PW-ENET service? [DZ] There is no mutual process between the MEF and IETF to adjust the specifications. The MIB modules are derived from IETF specifications. If the specifications will changed, than we can adapt the MIB modules. Thanks David Please let me know, Ken
_______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
- [PWE3] Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-10 Ken Young
- [PWE3] RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-… David Zelig
- [PWE3] RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-… Ken Young
- [PWE3] RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-… Ken Young
- [PWE3] RE: Concern with draft-ietf-pwe3-enet-mib-… David Zelig