Re: [PWE3] CW usage in opposite directions for static PWs

[Lizhong Jin <[e-mail]>]

 Hi Yaakov,
Thanks for the comments during the session of PWE3.
For the static PW, the CW usage should be consisted, otherwise the packet
processing would be wrong. The CW nibble is not enough to identify a ACH,
and "PW label + CW nibble" is used to identify ACH. IMO, the static PW CW
capability could be got by "OR" operation of both local and remote CW
parameters.

Thanks
Lizhong


> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:44:56 +0000
> From: Yaakov Stein <[e-mail]>
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [PWE3] CW usage in opposite directions for static PWs
> Message-ID:
>        <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> At the meeting I promised to check when this issue in the subject line was
> last discussed.
>
> It was only a short while ago in Prague (see
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/pwe3-3.pdf slides 9 - 11<
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/pwe3-3.pdf%20slides%209%20-%2011
> >).
>
> I recall a lively discussion after the presentation,
> but the minutes do not show resolution of the issue of whether a CW MUST
> be used or not used
> in both directions for PWs not set up using the PWE3 control protocol.
>
> Y(J)S
>