RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt
<neil.2.harrison@bt.com> Wed, 14 March 2007 10:04 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 1HRQL6-0004RT-0w; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:04:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRQL4-0004RK-4w for pwe3@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:04:10 -0400
Received: from smtp1.smtp.bt.com ([217.32.164.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRQKx-0007sM-Oj for pwe3@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:04:10 -0400
Received: from I2KF03CV-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.44]) by smtp1.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:04:03 +0000
Received: from i2km99-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.31]) by I2KF03CV-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:04:02 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:04:00 -0000
Message-ID: <3C2E60A2B33F124A8A702388733BB606805D93@i2km99-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcdfgQf34JxvdI/fS2CH+S4TJpcBKwAAE9qwAAoo8sABkGqFkAAK9Huw
From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
To: yaakov_s@rad.com, busschbach@alcatel-lucent.com, amalis@gmail.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2007 10:04:02.0349 (UTC) FILETIME=[178D95D0:01C76620]
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 11dcac9fca4206f69d2a663d7a4faf43
Cc: townsley@cisco.com, pwe3@ietf.org, hshah@ciena.com, stbryant@cisco.com
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="===============0614962089=="
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Yaakov, -----Original Message----- From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com] Sent: 14 March 2007 05:55 To: Harrison,N,Neil,JCGA1 R; busschbach@alcatel-lucent.com; amalis@gmail.com Cc: townsley@cisco.com; pwe3@ietf.org; hshah@ciena.com; stbryant@cisco.com Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt Neil, Thanks for your clear statement of why you don't like MPLS. Sorry, you misinterpet me. I was simply pointing out facts......these are things I cannot change.....so this has nothing to do with 'opinions' of whether I like/dislike MPLS. It is the possible consequences of those facts I am urging caution on. regards, Neil However, perhaps I can restate the facts in a somewhat more positive way. MPLS is a general server layer. It can handle all clients. It is built to recursively carry itself with no overhead. It has an optional feature to eliminate itself when not needed, but no-one forces you to use that feature. Since IP was its first, and remains its most important client, there are special features to make carrying IP maximally efficient from both bandwidth and router-processing points of view. For all other payloads some extra bandwidth must be allowed. However, this is a mere 4 bytes (most of which are empty and just there in order to maintain efficient processing). Most of the time it is only needed for internal MPLS reasons, but other protocols have similar constructs (e.g. when you want to add priority bits to nontagged Ethernet you MUST use a VLAN tag, when you want to carry realtime traffic over IP, you must use at least 12 bytes of RTP header). If you only want to transport Ethernet, and you have Ethernet infrastructure, then don't bother using MPLS or any other server layer (unless you want to benefit from other characteristics of MPLS). If you already have an IP/MPLS infrastructure then you can use it for arbitrary clients - you needn't build a new infrastructure in order to provide legacy and Ethernet services. Y(J)S _____ From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 07:20 To: busschbach@alcatel-lucent.com; amalis@gmail.com Cc: townsley@cisco.com; pwe3@ietf.org; hshah@ciena.com; stbryant@cisco.com Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt I want to try and inject a sanity check on this thread. PWs are a direct consequence of the fact that MPLS does not treat all it's client consistently, ie IP=> null encaps OR peer PDU MPLS=> digital wrapper, ie just stick on new header and pretend we can create a server layer connection at will Other=> PW encaps. So PWs are an artificial construct for carrying XoverMPLS, and they only exist because of the way MPLS has been specified in the 1st place. Further, once the PWs entities become > 1 hop they have a step change in behaviour from being some form of adaptation (mainly to suit the vagaries of MPLS, and a wrong mind-set that client compression is a good idea) to a full-blown co-ps mode layer network in its own right.......so just where the heck are we going with this stuff? At a minimum one will create a quite unnecessary common adaptation layer for other technologies. If I want to carry Ethernet over Ethernet (ie MACinMAC) I for sure don't want a PW layer inserting in the stack thank you very much! Further, I'd take issue with anyone who tried to tell me the functional fields in the CW are useful in a properly constructed co-ps or co-cs mode server layer...... they look like they do purely to serve issues created by MPLS. I think caution and careful consideration should be exercised before spreading the PW remit wider than MPLS. Aside=> the fact that PHP 'votes itself (ie MPLS) off the island' as I once heard someone most tellingly remark does not justify the direction being suggested IMO.....but hey, that's a consequential problem of allowing PHP in the first place! regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) [mailto:busschbach@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: 06 March 2007 00:00 To: Andrew G. Malis Cc: Mark Townsley; pwe3; Shah,Himanshu; Stewart Bryant Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt Andy, The charter language does not apply in the case of adjacent PEs. You can't mandate that there be an MPLS network between adjacent PEs, because then they would not be adjacent. That said, I agree that the text in RFC4447 was not meant to sanction PWs over Ethernet. We should update the charter and allow PWs over any packet switched network. Peter _____ From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:amalis@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 6:50 PM To: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) Cc: Mark Townsley; pwe3; Shah,Himanshu; Stewart Bryant Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt Peter, Thanks for pointing that out. However, that doesn't change the existing charter language. Cheers, Andy ------- At 3/5/2007 05:43 PM -0600, Busschbach, Peter B \(Peter\) wrote: Andy, I respectfully disagree. The text that I quoted says "... if the pseudowire endpoints are immediately adjacent ...". Note the "s" at the end of "endpoints". Therefore, the text is about adjacent PEs and it says that in that case there is no need for an MPLS tunnel to carry the PW. In other words, the PW can be carried directly over the link layer between the adjacent PEs. Peter _____ From: Andrew G. Malis [ <mailto:amalis@gmail.com> mailto:amalis@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 6:33 PM To: Shah, Himanshu Cc: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter); Stewart Bryant; Mark Townsley; pwe3 Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt I would like to point out that the intent of the RFC 4447 text quoted by Peter was to ONLY allow PHP to be used on the physical link between the penultimate P router and the PE router where the PW terminates and connects with the attachment circuit. In this one case only, the MPLS tunnel used to carry the PW terminates at the penultimate P router rather than at the PE router. It was not meant to be a general escape mechanism to allow the general use of PWs over tunneling mechanisms other than MPLS or L2TPv3. Further, to quote the WG charter, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge (PWE3) will specify the encapsulation, transport, control, management, interworking and security of services emulated over IETF specified PSNs." Ethernet and SONET are not IETF specified PSNs. So, while there may be value in supporting PWs over non-IETF-specified PSNs, I do agree with Stewart and Mark that a charter change will be necessary to pursue this work. Cheers, Andy -------- At 3/5/2007 05:51 PM -0500, Shah, Himanshu wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C75F78.CAA52CEF" I believe this is a key point. In my view, discussions on in/out scope really does not apply (for the reasons described below). Also, note that as L2 technology becomes more intelligent (eg. PBT), keeping it out-of-scope (artificially) would be a mistake. There are other docs (past/present), that already use this concept, such as dry martini, MEF3/8 (TDM-PWoETH, except ethType is different), pw-over-pbt, etc. IMO, himanshu -----Original Message----- From: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) [ mailto:busschbach@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Mon 3/5/2007 5:24 PM To: Stewart Bryant; Mark Townsley Cc: pwe3 Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt Dave Allan made a point that I believe is valid and makes this whole discussion irrelevant. To rephrase what he said: Page 4 of RFC 4447 says: In the protocol specified herein, the pseudowire demultiplexor field is an MPLS label. Thus, the packets that are transmitted from one end of the pseudowire to the other are MPLS packets, which must be transmitted through an MPLS tunnel. However, if the pseudowire endpoints are immediately adjacent and penultimate hop popping behavior is in use, the MPLS tunnel may not be necessary. Based on this logic, PWs can be carried over SDH, Ethernet or any other protocol that can carry MPLS packets without violating the PWE3 charter. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:35 PM > To: Mark Townsley > Cc: pwe3 > Subject: Re: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.txt > > > So the proposal seems to be that PWE3 extends VCCV for use > with a PWE3 PW over a non IP/MPLS PSN. > > We should put this on the agenda for Prague. > > - Stewart > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 _______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… neil.2.harrison
- [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-01.t… Loa Andersson
- Re: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Stewart Bryant
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… David Allan
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… O'Connor, Don
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Dinesh Mohan
- Re: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Mark Townsley
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Dinesh Mohan
- Re: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Thomas D. Nadeau
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Shah, Himanshu
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Andrew G. Malis
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Andrew G. Malis
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Dinesh Mohan
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… neil.2.harrison
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Hamid Ould-Brahim
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… Yaakov Stein
- RE: [PWE3] question on draft-mohan-pwe3-vccv-eth-… neil.2.harrison