Subject: [PWE3] draft-bryant-pwe3-packet-pw

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:05:12 -0700

Hi,

I browsed through the draft and noticed the talk of PID in control
word as well as PID label.

I think the approaches cannot be used as the same PW can probably
carry both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic however the PID's for the two will be
different. In that case we need parallel PW's one per protocol or use
other mechanism to signal PID (i.e. ACH-TLV).

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:26:29 -0700

Hi,

If the statement:

   Where the client LSR and server PE is co-located in the same
   equipment, the data-link layer can be simplified to a simple
   protocol identifier (PID) that is used to multiplex the various
   data-link types onto a pseudowire.  This is the method that
   described in this document.

mean that we will use a PID which is not in the IP space but instead
use PID values of start + x (where 0 <= x <= 15). The number of values
will be increased exponentially with the number of protocols carried.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:18:57 -0700

Hi,

I read the PW LDP  RFC 4446 as well as RFC 4447 more carefully.

So what is the PW type (G-PID is used in GMPLS signalling) to be used
for an LSP with multiple different payloads (note that an LER may not
be able to use one type but terminate the other IPv4 vs IPv6 - so
support of just a Packet PW may not necessarily work).

If we use a PW type combination (some union of the 4 types of Packet
PW traffic defined) which may not be scalable.

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:27:53 +0100

> will be increased exponentially with the number of protocols carried.
I do not understand this proposal
>> word as well as PID label.
These were two alternate approaches.
>> different. 
I don't understand your concern. The suggestion was to inc the CW by 2 
bytes and put the
PID in the extended CW. This PID in the CW would have said v4/v6 etc.
>> In that case we need parallel PW's one per protocol or use
Why would you need to signal the PID - it is not signalled in PPP or 
Ethernet.

- Stewart

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:33:39 +0100

Vishwas

If you look at the previous version of the draft it has a lot more 
detail of how
we would have made the label mapping work - we needed a new FEC.

However note that we no longer think that is the best approach and have
proposed a virtual Ethernet interface instead.

Stewart

Vishwas Manral wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>   

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:37:36 -0700

Hi Stewart,

I think the Virtual Ethernet interface approach will work.

My concern was related to how we will signal multiple types - using
one type may not have helped.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Vishwas
>
> If you look at the previous version of the draft it has a lot more detail of
> how