IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [PWE3] VCCV usage

Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com> Sat, 20 November 2010 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sboutros@cisco.com>
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 A44DF3A68D2 for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:55:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ZXNZucmcJbKP for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF323A68B1 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmwDAM//5kyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbACGYo0/jkJxoFKbI4VLBIRaiRU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,227,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="292652582"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2010 06:56:06 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAK6u68I012204; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:56:06 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.87]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:56:06 -0800
Received: from sboutros-wxp02.ciswco.com ([10.21.124.114]) by xfe-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:56:05 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:56:04 -0800
To: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>, "neil.2.harrison@bt.com" <neil.2.harrison@bt.com>, "cpignata@cisco.com" <cpignata@cisco.com>
From: Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5DF53972F7E9134782DCE51624466FE50ACFB513AF@USNAVSXCHMBSC2. ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <C9087057.3B57%matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com> <4CE2D8A4.4010903@cisco.com> <5DF53972F7E9134782DCE51624466FE50ACFB50E62@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <960EC8F9A775AB40BF58D8953342D86303281232@XMB-RCD-206.cisco.com> <5DF53972F7E9134782DCE51624466FE50ACFB50EAE@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <7A808A63-83FA-4B97-9AC8-7A09A2297FB0@cisco.com> <5DF53972F7E9134782DCE51624466FE50ACFB51070@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com> <6D3D47CB84BDE349BC23BF1C94E316E44002026A7E@EMV62-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net> <5DF53972F7E9134782DCE51624466FE50ACFB513AF@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-222FRaqbC8w0000003f@xfe-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2010 06:56:05.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[00B47910:01CB8880]
Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "yaakov_s@rad.com" <yaakov_s@rad.com>, "lmartini@cisco.com" <lmartini@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV usage
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:55:16 -0000

You brought a good point about static MS-PWs,

For static MS-PWs at S-PE On TTL-Expiry..

1- Check if this is an ipv4 oam packet.
2- If the PW support CW, check if the 1st nibble = 0x0001,  if so 
then this is an oam.

Do you see any issue with doing the above?

Thanks,

Sami
At 02:13 PM 11/18/2010, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) wrote:
>Neil,
>This is specifically about the control plane signaling of VCCV 
>capability in a MS-PW. So, these apply to S-PE nodes where two 
>segments of a MS-PW are stitched.
>
>Mustapha.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
>Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:39 PM
>To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); cpignata@cisco.com
>Cc: pwe3@ietf.org; yaakov_s@rad.com; lmartini@cisco.com
>Subject: RE: [PWE3] VCCV usage
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
> > Sent: 17 November 2010 19:41
> > To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
> > Cc: pwe3@ietf.org; Yaakov Stein; Luca Martini (lmartini)
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV usage
> >
> > Carlos,
> > I meant to say the VCCV capability options must be agreed upon by all
> > nodes in the path of the MS-PW as explained in the draft.
>NH=> The *nodes* in which layer network?  And how does one know 
>which layer network one is in from looking only at the DP 
>information?  Will this apply to both MPLS and MPLS-TP?
>
>regards, Neil
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>pwe3@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status