From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon May 2 10:21:18 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AB7E0777; Mon, 2 May 2011 10:21:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qaABunSBdt30; Mon, 2 May 2011 10:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDD1E077E; Mon, 2 May 2011 10:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.52 Message-ID: <20110502172117.28544.20203.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 10:21:17 -0700 Cc: pwe3 mailing list , pwe3 chair , RFC Editor Subject: [PWE3] Protocol Action: 'Pseudowire (PW) OAM Message Mapping' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-16.txt) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 17:21:18 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Pseudowire (PW) OAM Message Mapping' (draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-16.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map/ Technical Summary This document specifies the mapping and notification of defect states between a pseudowire (PW) and the Attachment Circuits (ACs) of the end-to-end emulated service. It standardizes the behavior of Provider Edges (PEs) with respect to PW and AC defects. It addresses ATM, Frame Relay, TDM, and SONET/SDH PW services, carried over MPLS, MPLS/IP and L2TPV3/IP Packet Switched Networks (PSNs). Working Group Summary One of the work items in the PWE3 Working Group Charter is to "Specify Operations and Management (OAM) mechanisms for all PW types, suitable for operation over both IP/L2TPv3 and MPLS PSNs, and capable of providing the necessary interworking with the OAM mechanisms of the emulated service." This document addresses this work item for ATM, Frame Relay, TDM, and SONET/SDH pseudowires. A separate document will address Ethernet pseudowires. Document Quality There are no concerns about document quality. Personnel Andrew Malis, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com is the Document Shepherd for this document. Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director. From amalis@gmail.com Tue May 3 09:03:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF49E0711 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqsNDb7QxOIH for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2F9E06B5 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so151941qwc.31 for ; Tue, 03 May 2011 09:03:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=cjAF175r9v97CrhrsCecKsYslIjW0encGh3hDW43k5M=; b=mexxiQShJQaALrDDhFIGrrQT/gE5Qa8mNbTh6D0rj/raOK0UHfuxvRjdh9mRxaPWld EAaaizfS7RJQ4jYFF77OeGd/W/U9YPWzOW+zfRmzJBvt02rvW2SQO69y35QC8yeQgOkl JsMlSwi6FaQICVrHqZzujcbFP0e2sHiUfgZsU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=f/aknw9n6A+vL+JMBUKdZw1dVwYzIs+aNGYt4F9e3OOG0uy3TclvZeu6CUatF6fKtM 8AXoiGsbVbpovH1MlaIDhL7L9DAUvyRFWOjTKdHUCE99JnTP7/prgEpMu/jKXQJfo8s0 SzRUwhU7MO9DCdu66L8EURHKFkfF+mRK0D0n0= Received: by 10.224.182.1 with SMTP id ca1mr7559698qab.224.1304438532143; Tue, 03 May 2011 09:02:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.86.129 with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 12:01:52 -0400 Message-ID: To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 working group poll for draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 16:03:51 -0000 Sorry for being a bit late with closing this poll, but there was excellent discussion on the list and Matthew and I wanted to make sure it had completed before closing it out. Matthew and I have reviewed the comments and tend to agree that some additional details are required before this can be adopted as a WG draft. We saw some good suggestions from Curtis and others on how to address these details. Authors, we would like to see a re-spin to address these comments, and comments on the list on the re-spin. Also, there was a question of WG scope that came up in the discussion. Matthew and I agree that the problem is in scope, but we'll need to add a new milestone to the WG charter once this draft is accepted by the WG. Thanks, Andy On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > The authors of draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt have > asked that this draft be made a PWE3 working group draft. > > This email starts a two week poll, closing Tuesday April 26, to help > judge consensus on this. > > Please send your responses to the PWE3 list. > > Thanks, > Andy and Matthew > From sboutros@cisco.com Tue May 3 09:23:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C9FE0854 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id trIr1a73+QJd for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78D8E0651 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sboutros@cisco.com; l=1667; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1304439827; x=1305649427; h=date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to:references: mime-version:message-id; bh=EHMBgEMkagyVX5q1v9mI66IJoDF0VC1v2KV+LTF3AWA=; b=Ou1V0Zt3xDmeEaEyCg9qzjCg5svDFUahxPH83n0Jg6yl4cHa0vphl2GP aYW1cu/UJ4L3w89uoTYsYRTAiBuCg0R/zbhWpeeZR8nxnV0Q9GPOxP/Uo o3Dm8jgKNLgpyIyd3clXhQHRpu4bKhEkz7xriVifM2rQVSy3fp80M5/j/ A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AskHAM8rwE2rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbACHY5Bjhh8BhzV3qE2ceIYCBIYljRaKLw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,310,1301875200"; d="scan'208,217";a="691170366" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2011 16:23:47 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p43GNlQj026546; Tue, 3 May 2011 16:23:47 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.87]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 3 May 2011 09:23:47 -0700 Received: from sboutros-wxp02.ciswco.com ([10.89.13.21]) by xfe-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 3 May 2011 09:23:46 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 09:23:40 -0700 To: From: Sami Boutros In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_7923671==.ALT" Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2011 16:23:46.0800 (UTC) FILETIME=[7A512700:01CC09AE] Cc: "Malis, Andrew G. \(Andy\)" , "Siva Sivabalan \(msiva\)" Subject: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 16:23:48 -0000 --=====================_7923671==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi PWE3 working group, We have presented "MAC Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire" at IETF79 and 80 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01 This document specifies a mechanism to signal MAC address withdrawal notification using PW Associated Channel (ACH). Such notification is useful when statically provisioned PWs are deployed in VPLS/H-VPLS environment. The authors are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments on the mailing list. Thanks, Sami --=====================_7923671==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi PWE3 working group,
 
We have presented "
MAC Address Withdrawal over Static
Pseudowire
" at IETF79 and 80
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01

   This document specifies a mechanism to signal MAC
address withdrawal
   notification using PW Associated Channel (ACH). Such
notification is
   useful when statically provisioned PWs are deployed in
VPLS/H-VPLS
   environment.
The authors are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments on the mailing list.
 
Thanks,
Sami
--=====================_7923671==.ALT-- From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Tue May 3 10:37:30 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA39E0860 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 10:37:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.366 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QGq1bjkf6ODM for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 10:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E311E0756 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 10:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (unknown [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EF71B354E7; Tue, 3 May 2011 13:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:37:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <7A313C1A-D15E-4908-A383-1CE78B794F1C@lucidvision.com> References: To: "Andrew G. Malis" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 working group poll for draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 17:37:31 -0000 On May 3, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Sorry for being a bit late with closing this poll, but there was > excellent discussion on the list and Matthew and I wanted to make sure > it had completed before closing it out. Matthew and I have reviewed > the comments and tend to agree that some additional details are > required before this can be adopted as a WG draft. We saw some good > suggestions from Curtis and others on how to address these details. > Authors, we would like to see a re-spin to address these comments, and > comments on the list on the re-spin. > > Also, there was a question of WG scope that came up in the discussion. > Matthew and I agree that the problem is in scope, but we'll need to > add a new milestone to the WG charter once this draft is accepted by > the WG. Wouldn't the WG need to agree on this new work item, and then the charter amended before we would adopt the document as a WG draft? That is, it would seem to me that we need a charter item first, and then we satisfy it with a WG draft(s). --Tom > > Thanks, > Andy > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: >> The authors of draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt have >> asked that this draft be made a PWE3 working group draft. >> >> This email starts a two week poll, closing Tuesday April 26, to help >> judge consensus on this. >> >> Please send your responses to the PWE3 list. >> >> Thanks, >> Andy and Matthew >> > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > From amalis@gmail.com Tue May 3 11:53:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B10E06D6 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 11:53:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.182 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.417, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WTo7YSS0oN4B for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1AEE06B1 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so2185423qyk.10 for ; Tue, 03 May 2011 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QZIqURqMbtMmmrnayCvSsQbSZtqG6yU28VeAGEHk7pQ=; b=Rh8w/O9q/ECZT5U3eIevwpe7qYtvS52Nfcf1dcOhaOCNg0x8BCy576AwVwIK5S3iNp 5iGGvDvB/ulA5TM0p/9ltfdcnjfEK034xHmpjKGc9khEbDMEe8PEBDXbBunQ9a9SYxxo DIfvLaU9pc+4Dfmu/ynhkkt5lzm+xdEvMKodY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=NGexyEcFMDC4YI6Ikc5zRJIgPnIi2tRgPWMTgQkHABpoAaqdqRYWshqws0UkB3L7Sn RQhVuVT+1dqWf9VAEbP82eadtjP0YGCr8eDKFgeG5mf1+ezOBp7KvuZzUOxx1VY65FBJ BiYM0ha1B2YBkWqLfhb+c1smUsXwIJk0xYZ3A= Received: by 10.224.195.67 with SMTP id eb3mr196644qab.324.1304448827105; Tue, 03 May 2011 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.86.129 with HTTP; Tue, 3 May 2011 11:53:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7A313C1A-D15E-4908-A383-1CE78B794F1C@lucidvision.com> References: <7A313C1A-D15E-4908-A383-1CE78B794F1C@lucidvision.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 14:53:27 -0400 Message-ID: To: Thomas Nadeau Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 working group poll for draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 18:53:48 -0000 Tom, We can make WG acceptance conditional on agreement for the new charter milestone (and put them together in one discussion). But that's premature right now. Cheers, Andy On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Thomas Nadeau wro= te: > > On May 3, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > >> Sorry for being a bit late with closing this poll, but there was >> excellent discussion on the list and Matthew and I wanted to make sure >> it had completed before closing it out. Matthew and I have reviewed >> the comments and tend to agree that some additional details are >> required before this can be adopted as a WG draft. We saw some good >> suggestions from Curtis and others on how to address these details. >> Authors, we would like to see a re-spin to address these comments, and >> comments on the list on the re-spin. >> >> Also, there was a question of WG scope that came up in the discussion. >> Matthew and I agree that the problem is in scope, but we'll need to >> add a new milestone to the WG charter once this draft is accepted by >> the WG. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Wouldn't the WG need to agree on this new work item, and t= hen the > charter amended before we would adopt the document as a WG draft? That is= , > it would seem to me that we need a charter item first, and then we satisf= y > it with a WG draft(s). > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--Tom > > > >> >> Thanks, >> Andy >> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrot= e: >>> The authors of draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt have >>> asked that this draft be made a PWE3 working group draft. >>> >>> This email starts a two week poll, closing Tuesday April 26, to help >>> judge consensus on this. >>> >>> Please send your responses to the PWE3 list. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Andy and Matthew >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> pwe3 mailing list >> pwe3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >> > > From sboutros@cisco.com Tue May 3 13:42:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC27E0800; Tue, 3 May 2011 13:42:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id whnxEw0etNr5; Tue, 3 May 2011 13:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8897FE069B; Tue, 3 May 2011 13:42:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sboutros@cisco.com; l=585; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1304455327; x=1305664927; h=date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to:references: mime-version:message-id; bh=Htx7oqunPLSjs+1z7Lo1CBHG5zRDZUEkvKvnegHL2vs=; b=DsYR8+tc4oSh7tnBJYYNpkclBM5E3ba0yviVAiciAlf9VZ1XflKPILQA jEmoGpFUiHxXJi9UlLqgLnyVekdhXj6VN+n6gFgIgAclD+OV7DS1hjOBi 2pQnTuD5+u5cI3cBWrb1eMEEcGTejNPn1QqRus4lXcpjRBxSQ3gAWkXhi k=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAEFowE2rRDoG/2dsb2JhbACHZJ44d6dTnQCGAgSGJY0Wii8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,311,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="441073057" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2011 20:42:07 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p43Kg6nD024408; Tue, 3 May 2011 20:42:07 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 3 May 2011 13:42:07 -0700 Received: from sboutros-wxp02.ciswco.com ([171.71.139.235]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 3 May 2011 13:42:06 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 13:42:04 -0700 To: , l2vpn@ietf.org From: Sami Boutros In-Reply-To: <7.1.0.9.0.20101123022725.069dedf0@cisco.com> References: <7.1.0.9.0.20101123022725.069dedf0@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2011 20:42:06.0402 (UTC) FILETIME=[90CCBA20:01CC09D2] Cc: "Malis, Andrew G. \(Andy\)" , "Siva Sivabalan \(msiva\)" Subject: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 20:42:08 -0000 We have presented " MAC Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire " at IETF79 and 80 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 This document specifies a mechanism to signal MAC address withdrawal notification using PW Associated Channel (ACH). Such notification is useful when statically provisioned PWs are deployed in VPLS/H-VPLS environment. The authors are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments on the mailing list. Thanks, Sami From mach.chen@huawei.com Tue May 3 18:36:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62189E0797 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 18:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.700, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0kFu93aH+2BY for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 18:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F41AE0772 for ; Tue, 3 May 2011 18:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKN001XLDT5IA@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pwe3@ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 09:36:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LKN009W6DT5NY@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pwe3@ietf.org; Wed, 04 May 2011 09:36:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.35) by szxeml207-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Wed, 04 May 2011 09:36:37 +0800 Received: from SZXEML502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.205]) by szxeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([169.254.173.75]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Wed, 04 May 2011 09:36:40 +0800 Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 01:36:20 +0000 From: Mach Chen In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.110.98.39] To: "Andrew G. Malis" , "pwe3@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: [PWE3] PWE3 working group poll for draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt Thread-index: AQHL+dFOEpka5xBieE+ulkkj6qNXOZR63RYAgAEkBHA= X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: References: Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 working group poll for draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 01:36:43 -0000 Thanks Andy, We are working on a revision to solve the comments raised during the polling, and many thanks to those who gave comments/suggestions on the list and off-line! Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Andrew G. Malis > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:02 AM > To: pwe3@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 working group poll for > draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt > > Sorry for being a bit late with closing this poll, but there was > excellent discussion on the list and Matthew and I wanted to make sure > it had completed before closing it out. Matthew and I have reviewed > the comments and tend to agree that some additional details are > required before this can be adopted as a WG draft. We saw some good > suggestions from Curtis and others on how to address these details. > Authors, we would like to see a re-spin to address these comments, and > comments on the list on the re-spin. > > Also, there was a question of WG scope that came up in the discussion. > Matthew and I agree that the problem is in scope, but we'll need to > add a new milestone to the WG charter once this draft is accepted by > the WG. > > Thanks, > Andy > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Andrew G. Malis > wrote: > > The authors of draft-cao-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-02.txt have > > asked that this draft be made a PWE3 working group draft. > > > > This email starts a two week poll, closing Tuesday April 26, to help > > judge consensus on this. > > > > Please send your responses to the PWE3 list. > > > > Thanks, > > Andy and Matthew > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Wed May 4 01:19:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9F5E0707; Wed, 4 May 2011 01:19:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.951 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.298, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xb6VftfxonxH; Wed, 4 May 2011 01:19:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3EFE06D4; Wed, 4 May 2011 01:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.62]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p448Emn2027763 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 4 May 2011 10:19:11 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.34]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB02.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.62]) with mapi; Wed, 4 May 2011 10:18:54 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:18:50 +0200 Thread-Topic: draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01 to WG draft? Thread-Index: AcwKM+hsLNoO8sLZTdGalGNmximl+A== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.80 Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" Subject: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01 to WG draft? X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 08:19:16 -0000 The authors of draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01 have asked that this draft be adopted as a PWE3 WG draft. This email starts a two week poll of the list to help us judge if there is consensus to move forward with this draft. Please reply to the PWE3 list only, by Wed May 18th. Regards, Matthew & Andy From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Wed May 4 10:05:00 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE99E0684 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 10:05:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vdQzL3b4Jviq for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 10:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF47AE0675 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 10:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p44H4u9j031228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 19:04:56 +0200 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSA3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.34]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Wed, 4 May 2011 19:04:56 +0200 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 19:04:52 +0200 Thread-Topic: Consensus call on draft-kini-pwe3-pkt-encap-efficient-ip-mpls-02.txt Thread-Index: AcwKfWSMsliDIzCKSlKiubWDcbFfsg== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C9E745C4DA5Ematthewboccialcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: [PWE3] Consensus call on draft-kini-pwe3-pkt-encap-efficient-ip-mpls-02.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 17:05:00 -0000 --_000_C9E745C4DA5Ematthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, Having considered the additional feedback on the list, it seems that there = is no consensus to adopt the approach outlined in this draft. The chairs wo= uld like to encourage the authors to consider whether some of the other app= roaches already discussed using existing PW types e.g. Using GRE on an IP P= W, would meet their needs. Regards, Matthew --_000_C9E745C4DA5Ematthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Folks,

Having considered the additional feedback on the list, it seems tha= t there is no consensus to adopt the approach outlined in this draft. The c= hairs would like to encourage the authors to consider whether some of the o= ther approaches already discussed using existing PW types e.g. Using GRE on= an IP PW, would meet their needs.

Regards,
<= div>
Matthew
--_000_C9E745C4DA5Ematthewboccialcatellucentcom_-- From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Thu May 5 04:39:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48622E0752; Thu, 5 May 2011 04:39:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.838 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CHgp-2scBarw; Thu, 5 May 2011 04:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95012E06F2; Thu, 5 May 2011 04:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 125201974505403; Thu, 5 May 2011 19:37:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 62444.4876266596; Thu, 5 May 2011 19:26:43 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p45BcqB5041199; Thu, 5 May 2011 19:38:52 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: sboutros@cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:38:54 +0800 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-05-05 19:38:54, Serialize by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-05-05 19:38:54, Serialize complete at 2011-05-05 19:38:54, S/MIME Sign failed at 2011-05-05 19:38:54: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-05-05 19:38:55, Serialize complete at 2011-05-05 19:38:55 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 003FFC7A48257887_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p45BcqB5041199 Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, pwe3@ietf.org, msiva@cisco.com Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 11:39:08 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 003FFC7A48257887_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi Sami, Does the MAC address withdraw OAM message shares the same Associated Channel Type with PW OAM Message? I don't see the IANA assignment for this message in the draft. Other comments, see below. 4.1.2. Operation of Receiver Each PW is associated with a counter to keep track of the sequence number of the MAC withdrawal message received last. Whenever a MAC withdrawal message is received, and if the sequence number on the message is greater than the receive counter, the MAC address(es) contained in the MAC TLV(s) is/are removed, and the receive counter is incremented. The receiver sends an ACK whose sequence number is the same as the received message. [Lizhong] "greater than the receive counter" may not be the case, when PE receives the first MAC withdrawal message, the receiver counter would be empty. When the sequence number overflow, the receiver counter maybe greater that the sequence number. If the sequence number in the received message is smaller than or equal to the receive counter, the MAC TLV(s) is/are not processed. However, an ACK whose sequence number is the same as the received message is sent. [Lizhong] It would be better to define the range of valid sequence number, e.g, is "0" valid for the sequence number? Regards Lizhong > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 13:42:04 -0700 > From: Sami Boutros > To: , l2vpn@ietf.org > Cc: "Malis, Andrew G. \(Andy\)" , "Siva > Sivabalan \(msiva\)" > Subject: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > > We have presented " > MAC Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire > " at IETF79 and 80 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 > > > This document specifies a mechanism to signal MAC address withdrawal > notification using PW Associated Channel (ACH). Such notification is > useful when statically provisioned PWs are deployed in VPLS/H-VPLS > environment. > > > The authors are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and > would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments > on the mailing list. > > Thanks, > Sami > > --=_alternative 003FFC7 -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 003FFC7A48257887_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi Sami,
Does the MAC address withdraw OAM message shares the same Associated Channel Type with PW OAM Message? I don't see the IANA assignment for this message in the draft. Other comments, see below.

4.1.2. Operation of Receiver

   Each PW is associated with a counter to keep track of the sequence
   number of the MAC withdrawal message received last. Whenever a MAC
   withdrawal message is received, and if the sequence number on the
   message is greater than the receive counter, the MAC address(es)
   contained in the MAC TLV(s) is/are removed, and the receive counter
   is incremented. The receiver sends an ACK whose sequence number is
   the same as the received message.
[Lizhong] "greater than the receive counter" may not be the case, when PE receives the first MAC withdrawal message, the receiver counter would be empty. When the sequence number overflow, the receiver counter maybe greater that the sequence number.

   If the sequence number in the received message is smaller than or
   equal to the receive counter, the MAC TLV(s) is/are not processed.
   However, an ACK whose sequence number is the same as the received
   message is sent.
[Lizhong] It would be better to define the range of valid sequence number, e.g, is "0" valid for the sequence number?


Regards
Lizhong



> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 13:42:04 -0700
> From: Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com>
> To: <pwe3@ietf.org>, l2vpn@ietf.org
> Cc: "Malis, Andrew G. \(Andy\)" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>,   "Siva
>    Sivabalan \(msiva\)" <msiva@cisco.com>
> Subject: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01
> Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-2115U9T3TGJ000000bc@xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> We have presented "
> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire
> " at IETF79 and 80
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01
>
>
>     This document specifies a mechanism to signal MAC address withdrawal
>     notification using PW Associated Channel (ACH). Such notification is
>     useful when statically provisioned PWs are deployed in VPLS/H-VPLS
>     environment.
>
>
> The authors are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and
> would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments
> on the mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
> Sami
>
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 003FFC7A48257887_=-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu May 5 06:51:13 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FE2E076E; Thu, 5 May 2011 06:51:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SuUqM3MpWUj5; Thu, 5 May 2011 06:51:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DEDE0899; Thu, 5 May 2011 06:51:12 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110505135112.13306.16472.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 06:51:12 -0700 Cc: pwe3 mailing list , pwe3 chair , RFC Editor Subject: [PWE3] Protocol Action: 'Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel Traffic over MPLS Networks' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-16.txt) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 13:51:13 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel Traffic over MPLS Networks' (draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-16.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap/ Technical Summary A Fibre Channel pseudowire (PW) is used to carry Fibre Channel traffic over an MPLS network. This enables service providers to take advantage of MPLS to offer "emulated" Fibre Channel services. This document specifies the encapsulation of Fibre Channel traffic within a pseudowire. It also specifies the common procedures for using a PW to provide a Fibre Channel service. Working Group Summary This document is a product of the PWE3 working group. This draft originated as draft-roth-pwe3-fc-encap-01 in 2005, which contained a basic specification for the transport of FC over MPLS using PWs. Subsequently, there was significant debate about the congestion control and QoS implications of FC, which requires a reliable underlying transport. The document was reviewed by the transport area resulting in the development of a TCP-friendly congestion control protocol. However, this protocol was felt to add significant complexity, and was removed from the draft and instead the applicability of FC PWs limited to MPLS networks that are provisioned and operated with very low loss rates. Document Quality There are no concerns about protocol quality. Personnel Matthew Bocci is the Document Shepherd for this document. Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director. From sboutros@cisco.com Thu May 5 10:33:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CB1E08F6; Thu, 5 May 2011 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rvf71zpajn9r; Thu, 5 May 2011 10:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501AEE08F5; Thu, 5 May 2011 10:33:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sboutros@cisco.com; l=9227; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1304616811; x=1305826411; h=date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to:references: mime-version:message-id; bh=OQTeeAW0kxb30zUf/LZDpedjFfn7mNuAXX+jQ6p/Q88=; b=bNiYqJSbBXCjDmPz6Z4QHmnAALDCiaXXznII9l+20pJ0bgfIg66HwBTO Cftx5Nh2o2dn5qYOZ53vLpSD7SIBTfy5Bexe/AuP6SnEuPwx9e7B8ljIF je0ZAFBhwhJhpPU/qKSPlMxJK2Tkl4kvjUhvblt3Krg4xtmRvOikOT2n7 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlAFALnewk2rRDoI/2dsb2JhbACHY5cYAYdBd4hyng2ePYYHBIY4jT6KQw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,321,1301875200"; d="scan'208,217";a="442461980" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2011 17:33:30 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p45HXUEC019801; Thu, 5 May 2011 17:33:30 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 5 May 2011 10:33:30 -0700 Received: from sboutros-wxp02.ciswco.com ([171.71.139.235]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 5 May 2011 10:33:29 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 10:28:30 -0700 To: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn From: Sami Boutros In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_6522640==.ALT" Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2011 17:33:29.0980 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C8343C0:01CC0B4A] Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, pwe3@ietf.org, msiva@cisco.com Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 17:33:32 -0000 --=====================_6522640==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hi Lizhong, Thanks for your comments. Please see comments inline. At 04:38 AM 5/5/2011, lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn wrote: >Hi Sami, > >Does the MAC address withdraw OAM message shares the same Associated >Channel Type with PW OAM Message? I don't see the IANA assignment >for this message in the draft. Other comments, see below. Sami: Correct it does. >4.1.2. Operation of Receiver > > Each PW is associated with a counter to keep track of the sequence > number of the MAC withdrawal message received last. Whenever a MAC > withdrawal message is received, and if the sequence number on the > message is greater than the receive counter, the MAC address(es) > contained in the MAC TLV(s) is/are removed, and the receive counter > is incremented. The receiver sends an ACK whose sequence number is > the same as the received message. >[Lizhong] "greater than the receive counter" may not be the case, >when PE receives the first MAC withdrawal message, the receiver >counter would be empty. When the sequence number overflow, the >receiver counter maybe greater that the sequence number. Sami: We will update this section in next Rev to specify the handling and the meaning of 0 counters and to work around cases of wrapping counters. > If the sequence number in the received message is smaller than or > equal to the receive counter, the MAC TLV(s) is/are not processed. > However, an ACK whose sequence number is the same as the received > message is sent. >[Lizhong] It would be better to define the range of valid sequence >number, e.g, is "0" valid for the sequence number? Sami: Agreed as per above. Thanks, Sami >Regards >Lizhong > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 13:42:04 -0700 > > From: Sami Boutros > > To: , l2vpn@ietf.org > > Cc: "Malis, Andrew G. \(Andy\)" , "Siva > > Sivabalan \(msiva\)" > > Subject: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > > > > > We have presented " > > MAC Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire > > " at IETF79 and 80 > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 > > > > > > This document specifies a mechanism to signal MAC address withdrawal > > notification using PW Associated Channel (ACH). Such notification is > > useful when statically provisioned PWs are deployed in VPLS/H-VPLS > > environment. > > > > > > The authors are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and > > would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments > > on the mailing list. > > > > Thanks, > > Sami > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------- >ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this >mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail >communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated >to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents >of this communication to others. >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they >are addressed. If you have received this email in error please >notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this >message are those of the individual sender. >This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=====================_6522640==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Hi Lizhong,

Thanks for your comments. Please see comments inline.
At 04:38 AM 5/5/2011, lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn wrote:

Hi Sami,

Does the MAC address withdraw OAM message shares the same Associated Channel Type with PW OAM Message? I don't see the IANA assignment for this message in the draft. Other comments, see below.

Sami: Correct it does.

4.1.2. Operation of Receiver

   Each PW is associated with a counter to keep track of the sequence
   number of the MAC withdrawal message received last. Whenever a MAC
   withdrawal message is received, and if the sequence number on the
   message is greater than the receive counter, the MAC address(es)
   contained in the MAC TLV(s) is/are removed, and the receive counter
   is incremented. The receiver sends an ACK whose sequence number is
   the same as the received message.
[Lizhong] "greater than the receive counter" may not be the case, when PE receives the first MAC withdrawal message, the receiver counter would be empty. When the sequence number overflow, the receiver counter maybe greater that the sequence number.

Sami: We will update this section in next Rev to specify the handling and the meaning of 0 counters and to work around cases of wrapping counters.


   If the sequence number in the received message is smaller than or
   equal to the receive counter, the MAC TLV(s) is/are not processed.
   However, an ACK whose sequence number is the same as the received
   message is sent.
[Lizhong] It would be better to define the range of valid sequence number, e.g, is "0" valid for the sequence number?

Sami: Agreed as per above.

Thanks,

Sami


Regards
Lizhong



> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 13:42:04 -0700
> From: Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com>
> To: <pwe3@ietf.org>, l2vpn@ietf.org
> Cc: "Malis, Andrew G. \(Andy\)" <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>,   "Siva
>    Sivabalan \(msiva\)" <msiva@cisco.com>
> Subject: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01
> Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-2115U9T3TGJ000000bc@xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>
> We have presented "
> MAC Address Withdrawal over Static Pseudowire
> " at IETF79 and 80
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01
>
>
>     This document specifies a mechanism to signal MAC address withdrawal
>     notification using PW Associated Channel (ACH). Such notification is
>     useful when statically provisioned PWs are deployed in VPLS/H-VPLS
>     environment.
>
>
> The authors are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and
> would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments
> on the mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
> Sami
>
> 

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail
is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication
is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy
and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to
others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those
of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam
system.

--=====================_6522640==.ALT-- From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Fri May 6 07:15:02 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1ABBE06D4; Fri, 6 May 2011 07:15:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4cfUNFImsRRV; Fri, 6 May 2011 07:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6F1E06EF; Fri, 6 May 2011 07:15:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110506141502.24310.19086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 07:15:02 -0700 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] I-D Action:draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 14:15:03 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group of the IETF. Title : Flow Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network Author(s) : S. Bryant, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2011-05-06 Where the payload of a pseudowire comprises a number of distinct flows, it can be desirable to carry those flows over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Most forwarding engines are able to hash based on MPLS label stacks and use this mechanism to balance MPLS flows over ECMPs. This document describes a method of identifying the flows, or flow groups, within pseudowires such that Label Switching Routers can balance flows at a finer granularity than individual pseudowires. The mechanism uses an additional label in the MPLS label stack. END A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-05-06070409.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri May 6 12:34:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D57E0797; Fri, 6 May 2011 12:34:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7lD86sLm+G8t; Fri, 6 May 2011 12:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C63E0792; Fri, 6 May 2011 12:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110506193449.8894.35337.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 12:34:49 -0700 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Last Call: (Flow Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 19:34:50 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document: - 'Flow Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-05-20. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. Abstract Where the payload of a pseudowire comprises a number of distinct flows, it can be desirable to carry those flows over the equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Most forwarding engines are able to hash based on MPLS label stacks and use this mechanism to balance MPLS flows over ECMPs. This document describes a method of identifying the flows, or flow groups, within pseudowires such that Label Switching Routers can balance flows at a finer granularity than individual pseudowires. The mechanism uses an additional label in the MPLS label stack. From skraza@cisco.com Thu May 5 09:14:33 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A29E08A5; Thu, 5 May 2011 09:14:33 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9FHGSgoVhljC; Thu, 5 May 2011 09:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B6EE0779; Thu, 5 May 2011 09:14:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=skraza@cisco.com; l=1318; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1304612068; x=1305821668; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=PPqUdXFO5ZCKCzt0qwpTyPcCNzXN9j873PH8Pl1sBIM=; b=F6+MUpmCihYe6GRp4bRIOdFGunBFHKB15n6VvE8pU/23wCS73lfVoy8d hHpuqcFAHWWP4ODv+ucqEU6ncUOhaTHiaGgJmES8F6uH/oDcpFZ4SNKOg APtdXW+C5CwBTAKKpjdZuo818iozjodokBJYO4xOrzgWl1ZHcHxSANSuK w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AusIAJ7Mwk2tJXHB/2dsb2JhbACYVo1nd6csnjCGBwSPSoQsij8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,320,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="232475247" Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2011 16:14:27 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p45GEQdm029509; Thu, 5 May 2011 16:14:26 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 5 May 2011 11:14:26 -0500 Received: from 10.86.254.128 ([10.86.254.128]) by XMB-RCD-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 5 May 2011 16:14:26 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.29.0.110113 Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 12:15:28 -0400 From: Kamran Raza To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements" Thread-Index: AcwLP6XV1miX2H8qoEK7H055dP9t5w== X-Priority: 2 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2011 16:14:26.0170 (UTC) FILETIME=[80FB4DA0:01CC0B3F] X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 08 May 2011 11:36:26 -0700 Cc: George Swallow , andrew.g.malis@one.verizon.com, mpls@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements" X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 16:14:33 -0000 We had presented "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements" I-D at IETF79 and IETF80 [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-00], which defines LDP Typed Wildcard FEC elements for PW FECs types (FEC128 PW-Id, and FEC 129 Generalized PW-Id). We (the authors) are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments on the mailing list. I-D Abstract: An extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) defines the general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element". This can be used when it is desired to request all label bindings for a given type of FEC Element, or to release or withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element. However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be individually defined for each type of FEC element. This specification defines the typed wildcard FEC elements for the Pseudowire Identifier (PW Id) and Generalized Pseudowire Identifier (Gen. PW Id) FEC types. [P.S: This I-D was previously submitted as L2VPN WG doc http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-01, but was later resubmitted to PWE3 WG] Thanks. -- Syed Kamran Raza, Sami Boutros Cisco Systems, Inc., http://www.cisco.com From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Mon May 9 09:30:04 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804F3E0847; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:30:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5AmZDlVQs8xa; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FA6E084E; Mon, 9 May 2011 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.53 Message-ID: <20110509163003.30973.4893.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 09:30:03 -0700 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-16.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 16:30:04 -0000 --NextPart A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group of the IETF. Title : Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel Traffic over MPLS Networks Author(s) : D. Black, et al Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-16.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2011-05-03 A Fibre Channel pseudowire (PW) is used to carry Fibre Channel traffic over an MPLS network. This enables service providers to take advantage of MPLS to offer "emulated" Fibre Channel services. This document specifies the encapsulation of Fibre Channel traffic within a pseudowire. It also specifies the common procedures for using a PW to provide a Fibre Channel service. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-16.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap-16.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2011-05-09091837.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue May 10 22:07:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E61E0748; Tue, 10 May 2011 22:07:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.231 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.368, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kEQwePNuvPPu; Tue, 10 May 2011 22:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB82FE06C2; Tue, 10 May 2011 22:07:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.54 Message-ID: <20110511050734.18514.46561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:07:34 -0700 Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-01.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 05:07:35 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Wor= king Group of the IETF. Title : Using the Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowir= e in MPLS-TP Author(s) : Han Li Luca Martini Jia He Feng Huang Filename : draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-01.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2011-05-10 This document describes the requirements for using the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) in Pseudowires (PWs) in MPLS-TP networks, and provides an update to the description of GAL usage in [RFC5586] by removing the restriction that is imposed on using GAL for PWs especially in MPLS-TP environments. . A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-01.txt From gregimirsky@gmail.com Tue May 17 21:44:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482A4E06D4; Tue, 17 May 2011 21:44:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DQcqgxWeJPPy; Tue, 17 May 2011 21:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E3CE0681; Tue, 17 May 2011 21:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so1014918vws.31 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 21:44:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=mTTCeVn7AzCm84p7I4QQF6QMFs7zRbzGs+AkeROEDWg=; b=HZa+Myc8M8g/Urt6285UEl1dLwQW5qMOHiZ5+SOS1cmwRXyu2FT0B6glT2Q4QR3G5i 49LubAxT/PXF1l6yO76XF6RPyvxdEI4o7pi7LmAgcG5Nt5aEpVZ0Sb6SvnKAcqEwtoUL N/Rh4OWbUg/v9LPHNFDl4FwkQHpEXmIMpey78= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=i6aRiKZKPC0xdB5hEv2h4VJbF1pCmmXp/4Xzk09dYscSGcd4zlhRUWoSW2khSixu2g 2ngb+BFteWSTOXt5QasOpo1PCR/fdRFfpToZpd1APL3hkMJfIpho2JvRELGFsMOW7k2K KZsgnO9KvfOIJcKZNMhvh8Jvro7fyhY6eTFXI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.0.69 with SMTP id 5mr1978977vdc.96.1305693852022; Tue, 17 May 2011 21:44:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.156.228 with HTTP; Tue, 17 May 2011 21:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 21:44:11 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Mirsky To: "Siva Sivabalan(msiva)" , Sami Boutros , Luca Martini , pwe3 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf304346fe3c374f04a3858aeb Cc: mpls@ietf.org Subject: [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 04:44:14 -0000 --20cf304346fe3c374f04a3858aeb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Authors and All, I have a question to the document presented. The question is related to format of PW OAM message as defined in draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-03: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | 0xZZ PW OAM Message | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Refresh Timer | TLV Length |A| Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ~ TLVs ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ TLV Length is 8 bits long and thus combined length of PW OAM TLVs can be only 255 bytes long. That is sufficient for signalling PW Status message. But the limit might force to send multiple PW OAM messages if the list of specific MAC addresses to withdraw grows too long. Perhaps the format of PW OAM message might be changed to use ACH TLV per RFC 5586, have Refresh Timer and PW OAM Flag TLVs. Regards, Greg --20cf304346fe3c374f04a3858aeb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Authors and All,
I have a question to the document presented. The q= uestion is related to format of PW OAM message as defined in draft-ietf-pwe= 3-static-pw-status-03:

    0                 =
  1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 0 0 1|Version|   Reserved    | 0xZZ PW OAM Message           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Refresh Timer         |  TLV Length   |A|   Flags     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                            TLVs                               ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
T= LV Length is 8 bits long and thus combined length of PW OAM TLVs can be onl= y 255 bytes long. That is sufficient for signalling PW Status message. But = the limit might force to send multiple PW OAM messages if the list of speci= fic MAC addresses to withdraw grows too long. Perhaps the format of PW OAM = message might be changed to use ACH TLV per RFC 5586, have Refresh Timer an= d PW OAM Flag TLVs.

Regards,
Greg




--20cf304346fe3c374f04a3858aeb-- From gregimirsky@gmail.com Wed May 18 22:40:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3789AE0708; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J7yRodL0kfpS; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FB6E0701; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so1963063vxg.31 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=pM/UPV3dB//p2TU/17vPfzFdah2t0P3YkjqdTvk5a4c=; b=g76wDNi+w8viXXKLLz4GVYepe00uDMT+H3fpRBqRFzFJBo1r6XHke21InW8rVhKeMX d2NkIS3Lv4XeOGgJG+yUWY9UgwYsoPcBxYV/e9Zg1ivKvhkAGsA9ZSpY/UTpjfpBe2y9 DigwKLveVfi8GYpZTFyrp6DlmsO81tpgpeRt0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=HJ795g4BJ/IaJovxA6K49yKqVmBmPUV9j6/fWwLpFOoiqdze2f6z3FL2ccGzMC/zG2 7HUuQfzV6NJM2NJ+TL/KgpO3or3MVDDEFsTVP5rNctnqM0UH7Aay9LTni/GWmS4Ijvqx bM7/oC+Iq5Mc+8H24IA+h9kNBE3pG7h8aKhvw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.176.164 with SMTP id cj4mr3910815vdc.56.1305783623870; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.156.228 with HTTP; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:23 -0700 Message-ID: From: Greg Mirsky To: "Siva Sivabalan(msiva)" , Sami Boutros , Luca Martini , pwe3 , mpls@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5015d030dea6204a39a7100 Subject: [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 05:40:25 -0000 --bcaec5015d030dea6204a39a7100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Authors, I have a question on Section 3.1.2.1 when Lock (LI) is sent to S-PE. According to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-01 Lock operates only on MEP, i.e. it originated by MEP and addressed to MEP. In scenario considered in 3.1.2.1 LI addressed and processed by S-PE which is a MIP, not MEP. I believe that if Loopback to be performed on MS-PW the LI request must be send to remote T-PE. LB then might be set on S-PE or remote T-PE if LI was successful. And I think that referring to nodes as T-PE and S-PE when LI-LB performed on MPLS-TP LSP is confusing. To address PE a PW label must be present which is not the case if scope of LI-LB is the LSP. Regards, Greg --bcaec5015d030dea6204a39a7100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Authors,
I have a question on Section 3.1.2.1 when Lock (LI) is sen= t to S-PE. According to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-01 Lock operates only on M= EP, i.e. it originated by MEP and addressed to MEP. In scenario considered = in 3.1.2.1 LI addressed and processed by S-PE which is a MIP, not MEP. I be= lieve that if Loopback to be performed on MS-PW the LI request must be send= to remote T-PE. LB then might be set on S-PE or remote T-PE if LI was succ= essful.
And I think that referring to nodes as T-PE and S-PE when LI-LB performed o= n MPLS-TP LSP is confusing. To address PE a PW label must be present which = is not the case if scope of LI-LB is the LSP.

Regards,
Greg

--bcaec5015d030dea6204a39a7100-- From sboutros@cisco.com Thu May 19 12:26:25 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3B3E0768; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:26:25 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qZZ7xfP3VgwI; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:26:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA53E0742; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:26:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=sboutros@cisco.com; l=1030; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1305833185; x=1307042785; h=date:to:from:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version: message-id; bh=KFL70TfBHD6GXdAzXZbpm+q94CY/DTDO2E1uFnXnEZE=; b=lLEjmJkHrHc1joZ2fpUih0J04t4wdwH34xmECfXFIJU7EWALQQHZFnTb Daqh3iS85APJmnWt/xaap3uIpK1s4rlUN9qHkxBSQDWQt8r4/rzoyg+C3 C8mw4SlJ0OmYGzt0TtWD5JipDosqc2P7kYErmNiBYc/r5xOAp4uvYSgSh 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAC1u1U2rRDoG/2dsb2JhbACHbJ4nd6lbnhSGGQSGUI15il0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,238,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="319502705" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2011 19:26:24 +0000 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p4JJQOCa012630; Thu, 19 May 2011 19:26:24 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 May 2011 12:26:23 -0700 Received: from sboutros-wxp02.ciswco.com ([10.21.85.76]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 May 2011 12:26:23 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:26:21 -0700 To: Greg Mirsky , "Siva Sivabalan(msiva)" , Luca Martini , pwe3 , mpls@ietf.org From: Sami Boutros In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2011 19:26:23.0495 (UTC) FILETIME=[A3A02170:01CC165A] Subject: Re: [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 19:26:26 -0000 Hi Greg, At 10:40 PM 5/18/2011, Greg Mirsky wrote: >Dear Authors, >I have a question on Section 3.1.2.1 when Lock (LI) is sent to S-PE. >According to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-01 Lock operates only on MEP, >i.e. it originated by MEP and addressed to MEP. In scenario >considered in 3.1.2.1 LI addressed and processed by S-PE which is a >MIP, not MEP. I believe that if Loopback to be performed on MS-PW >the LI request must be send to remote T-PE. LB then might be set on >S-PE or remote T-PE if LI was successful. Sami: Correct. We need to update this section, agreed the LI can't be intercepted at S-PE, and hence the S-PE wouldn't need to send any PW-status for the LI on a PW. >And I think that referring to nodes as T-PE and S-PE when LI-LB >performed on MPLS-TP LSP is confusing. To address PE a PW label must >be present which is not the case if scope of LI-LB is the LSP. Sami: Sure, will update the text to use MEP/MIP to refer to nodes for LI-LB. Thanks, Sami >Regards, >Greg From cpignata@cisco.com Thu May 19 14:36:43 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCF8E0719; Thu, 19 May 2011 14:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PgXRBcU4um1I; Thu, 19 May 2011 14:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (unknown [64.102.19.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF366E06AE; Thu, 19 May 2011 14:36:42 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4JLafSD010076; Thu, 19 May 2011 17:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.102.157.109] (dhcp-64-102-157-109.cisco.com [64.102.157.109]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4JLafb7018826; Thu, 19 May 2011 17:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DD58D69.2030701@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:36:41 -0400 From: Carlos Pignataro Organization: cisco Systems, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kamran Raza References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 X-Face: *3w8NvnQ|kS~V{&{U}$?G9U9EJQ8p9)O[1[1F'1i>XIc$5FR!hdAIf5}'Xu-3`^Z']h0J* ccB'fl/XJYR[+,Z+jj`4%06nd'y9[ln&ScJT5S+O18e^ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mpls@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@one.verizon.com Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements" X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 21:36:44 -0000 Hi Kamran, I think the extension of an LDP Typed-Wildcard for the PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements is most useful. I have some questions/comments about the document: 1. The Typed-wildcard FECs as defined in the document apply to all FECs of a given type (all 0x80 or all 0x81). In contrast, RFC 5918 defines the typed-wildcard for the Prefix FEC Element with finer granularity, including also the AFI. Would it make sense to include in this case the PW type as part of both typed-wildcard FECs? I think that this document can either define the PW Type of 0x0000 as all-types for the typed wildcard, or (better) use the existing 0x7FFF Wildcard PW Type to provide the currently expected all-types functionality. 2. I think there might be a bit of overlap with the Group ID from the PWid FEC and with the PW Grouping TLV. I think that the document could discuss why the typed-wildcard is also needed (e.g., simplicity and different grouping). I think this is a useful doc. I also have some editorials that I will unicast. Thanks, -- Carlos. On 5/5/2011 12:15 PM, Kamran Raza wrote: > > > We had presented "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements" I-D at IETF79 and > IETF80 [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-00], > which defines LDP Typed Wildcard FEC elements for PW FECs types (FEC128 > PW-Id, and FEC 129 Generalized PW-Id). > > We (the authors) are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and would > be grateful if you could review the document and post comments on the > mailing list. > > I-D Abstract: > An extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) defines the > general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class > (FEC) Element". This can be used when it is desired to request all > label bindings for a given type of FEC Element, or to release or > withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element. > However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be individually defined > for each type of FEC element. This specification defines the typed > wildcard FEC elements for the Pseudowire Identifier (PW Id) and > Generalized Pseudowire Identifier (Gen. PW Id) FEC types. > > [P.S: This I-D was previously submitted as L2VPN WG doc > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-01, but was > later resubmitted to PWE3 WG] > > Thanks. From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Thu May 19 18:13:48 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15136E06E1; Thu, 19 May 2011 18:13:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f+6cgB94pEbe; Thu, 19 May 2011 18:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874E6E0658; Thu, 19 May 2011 18:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 7C2E7E06FD; Thu, 19 May 2011 18:13:47 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20110520011347.7C2E7E06FD@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 18:13:47 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [PWE3] RFC 6240 on Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP) MIB Using SMIv2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 01:13:48 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6240 Title: Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP) MIB Using SMIv2 Author: D. Zelig, Ed., R. Cohen, Ed., T. Nadeau, Ed. Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: May 2011 Mailbox: david_zelig@pmc-sierra.com, ronc@resolutenetworks.com, Thomas.Nadeau@ca.com Pages: 67 Characters: 129814 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-16.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6240.txt This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) circuits over a Packet Switch Network (PSN). [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Thu May 19 19:50:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF404E0684 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 19:50:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.838 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xZbPGCwZNQGX for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 19:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55EF0E0651 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 19:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 412301397396305; Fri, 20 May 2011 10:48:11 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 82008.5791042372; Fri, 20 May 2011 10:50:14 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p4K2oNrS025361; Fri, 20 May 2011 10:50:23 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: gregimirsky@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 10:50:16 +0800 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-05-20 10:50:24, Serialize by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-05-20 10:50:24, Serialize complete at 2011-05-20 10:50:24, S/MIME Sign failed at 2011-05-20 10:50:24: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-05-20 10:50:25, Serialize complete at 2011-05-20 10:50:25 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000F99C748257896_=" X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p4K2oNrS025361 Cc: lmartini@cisco.com, pwe3@ietf.org, msiva@cisco.com Subject: Re: [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 02:50:35 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 000F99C748257896_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi All, Reusing PW OAM message could work, but I suggest to define another message type, e.g, MAC Withdraw message. 1. usually, PW OAM does not including MAC withdraw. By integrating MAC withdraw to PW OAM message will lead to some concept confusing. 2. the MAC withdraw message has different advertise behavior with PW OAM message, e.g, in H-VPLS network. I think another message type would be much clear. Regards Lizhong > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 21:44:11 -0700 > From: Greg Mirsky > To: "Siva Sivabalan(msiva)" , Sami Boutros > , Luca Martini , pwe3 > > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01 > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear Authors and All, > I have a question to the document presented. The question is related to > format of PW OAM message as defined in draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-03: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | 0xZZ PW OAM Message | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Refresh Timer | TLV Length |A| Flags | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > ~ TLVs ~ > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > TLV Length is 8 bits long and thus combined length of PW OAM TLVs can be > only 255 bytes long. That is sufficient for signalling PW Status message. > But the limit might force to send multiple PW OAM messages if the list of > specific MAC addresses to withdraw grows too long. Perhaps the format of PW > OAM message might be changed to use ACH TLV per RFC 5586, have Refresh Timer > and PW OAM Flag TLVs. > > Regards, > Greg > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20110517/8f5802b2/attachment.htm> > > ------------------------------ > -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 000F99C748257896_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi All,
Reusing PW OAM message could work, but I suggest to define another message type, e.g, MAC Withdraw message.
1. usually, PW OAM does not including MAC withdraw. By integrating MAC withdraw to PW OAM message will lead to some concept confusing.
2. the MAC withdraw message has different advertise behavior with PW OAM message, e.g, in H-VPLS network.
I think another message type would be much clear.

Regards
Lizhong


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 21:44:11 -0700
> From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> To: "Siva Sivabalan(msiva)" <msiva@cisco.com>,   Sami Boutros
>    <sboutros@cisco.com>,    Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>, pwe3
>    <pwe3@ietf.org>
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-mac-wd-01
> Message-ID: <BANLkTi=fLXmsBiX1-anQojbapAWOqkJV9g@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Authors and All,
> I have a question to the document presented. The question is related to
> format of PW OAM message as defined in draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-03:
>
>     0                   1                   2                   3
>     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |0 0 0 1|Version|   Reserved    | 0xZZ PW OAM Message           |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |         Refresh Timer         |  TLV Length   |A|   Flags     |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>    |                                                               |
>    ~                            TLVs                               ~
>    |                                                               |
>    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> TLV Length is 8 bits long and thus combined length of PW OAM TLVs can be
> only 255 bytes long. That is sufficient for signalling PW Status message.
> But the limit might force to send multiple PW OAM messages if the list of
> specific MAC addresses to withdraw grows too long. Perhaps the format of PW
> OAM message might be changed to use ACH TLV per RFC 5586, have Refresh Timer
> and PW OAM Flag TLVs.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/pwe3/attachments/20110517/8f5802b2/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 000F99C748257896_=-- From skraza@cisco.com Thu May 19 21:36:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B84E06C2; Thu, 19 May 2011 21:36:15 -0700 (PDT) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t39e5oi9aTnT; Thu, 19 May 2011 21:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B40AE0659; Thu, 19 May 2011 21:36:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=skraza@cisco.com; l=4751; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1305866174; x=1307075774; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qEED/zm9b5HTnCGm/p0Njcp6EyvoQm/qEezvfb98OJI=; b=WWAFSMIuku6hci86icUoQAMpIuq5VREaFYo5LwlEBuIOpwDUKUwjo24n EMKOKRT6FVbYYJ+Dzrxmau+oRQdHgXEUrb/PvR400ziJzkuR6z6PaMzYx 6KHJtanQIae9F96wUpVN+ljKPujGVSDNZp8VKBO9rsZpYWBAPhLKP9nMS M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABLv1U2tJXG+/2dsb2JhbACmGXeIcJ93nX6DLoJrBJARhDiKWQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,240,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="319783166" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2011 04:36:13 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p4K4aDuW004474; Fri, 20 May 2011 04:36:13 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 May 2011 23:36:13 -0500 Received: from 10.86.255.179 ([10.86.255.179]) by XMB-RCD-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 20 May 2011 04:36:13 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.29.0.110113 Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 00:36:11 -0400 From: Kamran Raza To: Carlos Pignataro Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [mpls] Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements" Thread-Index: AcwWp3G18RuCplitn0CNPIK0G1yDIA== In-Reply-To: <4DD58D69.2030701@cisco.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2011 04:36:13.0416 (UTC) FILETIME=[73269680:01CC16A7] Cc: mpls@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@one.verizon.com Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback/comments on I-D "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements" X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 04:36:15 -0000 Hi Carlos, Thanks for the review. Please see inline [skraza] On 11-05-19 5:36 PM, "Carlos Pignataro" wrote: > Hi Kamran, > > I think the extension of an LDP Typed-Wildcard for the PWid and > Generalized PWid FEC Elements is most useful. > > I have some questions/comments about the document: > > 1. The Typed-wildcard FECs as defined in the document apply to all FECs > of a given type (all 0x80 or all 0x81). In contrast, RFC 5918 > defines the typed-wildcard for the Prefix FEC Element with finer > granularity, including also the AFI. Would it make sense to include > in this case the PW type as part of both typed-wildcard FECs? I > think that this document can either define the PW Type of 0x0000 as > all-types for the typed wildcard, or (better) use the existing > 0x7FFF Wildcard PW Type to provide the currently expected all-types > functionality. [skraza]: Typed Wildcard for Prefix FEC Element uses "AFI" mainly because "AFI" is an integral part of basic "Prefix FEC Element". Prefix FEC Element is a single type defined to include both IPv4/IPv6 prefixes, and hence AFI field is needed to distinguish b/w IPv4 Prefix and IPV6 prefix element. In case of PW, we already have different types "0x80", "0x81", "0x82" for different type of PW FEC Elements. But, I agree that we can use finer control using fields like pw-type (with wildcard pw-type defined in rfc4863). For FEC 0x80: we can use pw-type based wildcard; For FEC 0x81: we can use pw-type/AGI-type based wildcard; So, the Typed Wildcard PW FECs will be defined as: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Typed Wcard | Type = PWid | Len = 2 | PW-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [PW-Type 0x7FFF: All-Types] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Typed Wcard |Type = Gen PWid| Len = 3 | PW-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | AGI-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- [PW-Type 0x7FFF: All-Types] [AGI-Type ?? (0xFF): All-Types] BTW, since "0" is not defined/available for both pw-type and agi-type fields, we can pick "0" to mean "all-types" for the consistency reasons. FEC 0x82 [P2MP PW FEC] Typed Wildcard will be similar to FEC 0x81's. > > 2. I think there might be a bit of overlap with the Group ID from the > PWid FEC and with the PW Grouping TLV. I think that the document > could discuss why the typed-wildcard is also needed (e.g., > simplicity and different grouping). > [skraza]: Sure, will add a section in the next rev to clarify this. > I think this is a useful doc. > > I also have some editorials that I will unicast. > > Thanks, > > -- Carlos. > > On 5/5/2011 12:15 PM, Kamran Raza wrote: >> >> >> We had presented "LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements" I-D at IETF79 and >> IETF80 [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-00], >> which defines LDP Typed Wildcard FEC elements for PW FECs types (FEC128 >> PW-Id, and FEC 129 Generalized PW-Id). >> >> We (the authors) are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and would >> be grateful if you could review the document and post comments on the >> mailing list. >> >> I-D Abstract: >> An extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) defines the >> general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class >> (FEC) Element". This can be used when it is desired to request all >> label bindings for a given type of FEC Element, or to release or >> withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element. >> However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be individually defined >> for each type of FEC element. This specification defines the typed >> wildcard FEC elements for the Pseudowire Identifier (PW Id) and >> Generalized Pseudowire Identifier (Gen. PW Id) FEC types. >> >> [P.S: This I-D was previously submitted as L2VPN WG doc >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-01, but was >> later resubmitted to PWE3 WG] >> >> Thanks. -- Syed Kamran Raza Technical Leader, SPRSG IOS-XR Routing (MPLS) Cisco Systems, Inc., Kanata, ON, K2K 3E8, Canada Ph: +1 (613) 254-4520 http://www.cisco.com From agmalis@gmail.com Sun May 22 14:26:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186EDE066A for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 14:26:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t9GVO1GOGN7o for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 14:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D28DE0651 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 14:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so4045079qwc.31 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 14:26:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zYDpF9IG82k4SW85V3lxOuimpj5XRsYXqhOjBUewJwA=; b=VQmExpBSpq/BkkKtj+zd4r+Rctw+AJpmWgUrCIKTA6A0kQnISIOXszgDd4MDGP1QqO B9M+rKXDYdNk1HqIqz8ZETCdkkJ8aj2TQdBTd5FvLOB3nhEN5C+oXtR5tvJpOPZNaO/e 1RfjJAKW+VYImK4iyKBZdXf0kDx5tAOKdgfzI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Zz6UJO91J9PKb/xUajqb3wrSZvgA5tSDPbsbbmhcXs+jV4sfJQnaYkoF2jaRGQla3i +mOpLtKxhSQKauRKg/t65pkBBq+1KwHpbZOkUKBpfZv3f+p5eSkvALa0XAX2rlNGij8b QS4FTgYh2rNyd8sPPw3dwhvWNL37Q8Yb2ILbE= Received: by 10.229.52.34 with SMTP id f34mr1165955qcg.275.1306099610242; Sun, 22 May 2011 14:26:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: agmalis@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.184.9 with HTTP; Sun, 22 May 2011 14:26:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D05E6A0F3@PALLENE.office.hd> References: <791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D05E6A0F3@PALLENE.office.hd> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 17:26:30 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fcA8clbdNfDskvgiEHKGIMNWeV4 Message-ID: To: pwe3@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 21:26:52 -0000 All, I just noticed that this hadn't been sent to the pwe3 list, so I'm forwarding it for completeness. Cheers, Andy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rolf Winter Date: Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:24 AM Subject: tsv-dir review of draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw-06 To: "draft-ietf-pwe3-fat-pw@tools.ietf.org" Cc: "tsv-area@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org" , "tsv-dir@ietf.org" Hello, I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-dir@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. Generally, this is a well written document. This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a few nits the authors might consider before publication. And here go my comments. First a few on the content but most are purely editorial. CONTENT: Section 3 says: "If a flow LSE is present, it MUST be checked to determine whether it carries a reserved label. =A0If it is a reserved label the packet is processed according to the rules associated with that reserved label, otherwise the LSE is discarded." However section 1.2 states: "Note that the flow label MUST NOT be an MPLS reserved label." Isn't that a contradiction to a certain extend. I mean, if there is a reserved label in the flow LSE, isn't that an error and should not be processed? section 8.4: The second bullet in the section under: "The issues described above are mitigated by the following two factors:". I wonder whether that isn't a bit farfetched. I mean, in principle you suggest that customers could change e.g. the way their applications behave to let the ingress PE to be able to better apply the flow label. That sounds like asking a customer to change something on their application end to have a better network connectivity. section 8.5. Isn't a bigger problem here that you cannot guarantee that the OAM packets follow the same ECMP path and that violates the fate sharing requirement? section 12: You essentially say that the behaviour of IP packets are well defined regarding congestion and nothing needs to be done. Other payload needs to be dealt with by PW congestion avoidance (whatever that means). So IP packets that are not reacting to congestion (such as UDP) are no concern but other packets with the same behaviour are? Is that a correct reading of the text? EDITORIAL: Abstract: Remove the "END" at the end. Intro: page 3. first para: s/equipments[RFC4385]/equipments [RFC4385]/ page 3. first para: s/times )/times)/ page 3. fourth para: s/the type PW/the type of PW/ page 3. fourth para: s/[RFC5286] ./[RFC5286]./ section 1.2: page 5. first para: s/which knows flow LSE/which knows a flow LSE/ section 2: s/identify flows/identifies flows/ section 4: page 7: s/is unable process/is unable to process/ section 4.1: page 8: s/(seeSection 11 )/(see Section 11)/ page 8: s/T=3D 0/T=3D0/ section 7: s/Ingress and Egress PE's/ingress and egress PEs/ section 8.1: page 12: s/past[I-D.stein-pwe3-pwbonding]/past [I-D.stein-pwe3-pwbonding]/ section 8.3: page 12: s/An example of such a case is the of the/An example of such a case is the one of the/ or /An example of such a case is the/ section 8.4: Option one says: "The operator can choose to do nothing and the system will work as it does without the flow label." Isn't this option to not use the flow label. If so a better wording would maybe be: "The operator can choose to do nothing, i.e. to not employ the flow label" Option 3: 2/flows,/flows./ Why is section 9 not section 8.7? I mean it is concerned with applicability which is what section 8 is about. section 9: s/This is can be regarded as/This can be regarded as/ section 10: s/be will preceded/be preceded/ section 12: s/multiple ECMP/multiple ECMPs/ Best, Rolf NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 From mach.chen@huawei.com Sun May 22 20:47:16 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82080E0718; Sun, 22 May 2011 20:47:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.925, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WFBSbVCXHGR9; Sun, 22 May 2011 20:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D084E0721; Sun, 22 May 2011 20:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LLM00CCKQFF4P@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 11:45:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml208-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LLM004QJQFDWX@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 11:45:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.32) by szxeml208-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 23 May 2011 11:45:13 +0800 Received: from SZXEML502-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.6.52]) by SZXEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.32]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Mon, 23 May 2011 11:45:00 +0800 Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 03:44:59 +0000 From: Mach Chen X-Originating-IP: [10.110.98.39] To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: New Version Notification for draft-chen-pwe3-mpls-tp-aii-icc-00.txt Thread-index: AQHMEUGiQV8lDwBJ7kOghOHnSx5FNZSZ0+8Q X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" Subject: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chen-pwe3-mpls-tp-aii-icc-00.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 03:47:16 -0000 Hi, We just submitted a new draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-pwe3-mpls-tp-aii-icc-00 ) that defines a new Aii: Aii-ICC that is used in the scenarios where ICC is used as the Operator Identifier. We'd appreciate to receive your comments! Best regards, Mach and Vero > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 3:44 PM > To: Mach Chen > Cc: verozheng@huawei.com; Mach Chen > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-chen-pwe3-mpls-tp-aii-icc-00.txt > > A new version of I-D, draft-chen-pwe3-mpls-tp-aii-icc-00.txt has been > successfully submitted by Mach(Guoyi) Chen and posted to the IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-chen-pwe3-mpls-tp-aii-icc > Revision: 00 > Title: ITU Carrier Code (ICC) Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) > Creation date: 2011-05-12 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 5 > > Abstract: > This document defines a new Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) > type which could be used when ITU Carrier Code (ICC) is used as the > provider's globally unique identifier (Opr_ID). The new AII (ICC > AII) consists a ICC, a prefix and a AC ID field. > > > > > > The IETF Secretariat From amalis@gmail.com Mon May 23 12:41:54 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AF5E0832 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 12:41:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rUCNw70vR7Fg for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 12:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4541FE0809 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 12:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so5815461bwz.31 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 12:41:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yUCrBV50RxRgogZBuI4ugGghf+dMGou++AIBwWQhgTo=; b=dkGuJcojiZe0FLgcUWUtVTzEdTpgaD9w7mvZvIh6UYlhRsrMmFSFDf2ok8ecrPrhbX GOEIXc5MSKDaZfwuVLqYYP2b+BkK/0iGk3eP/b2deBP+ASMlEQb8tllsGtEShw4Mp1z6 j5DNjkzEwGYXK8whLQGbuY3ZDzjYx+dNSvolQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=npN3NYHJ962saoBttZV/hrZS3BsrGU4IuxpRcky0GhWhal48WwcBLkPo6NZKA4x+KC fUvRfOVqoWliZpxc/h+8z1zqxSvNiXo5LhuA4qcvXB/iW3vuN4jeiCm/vKsbUvib7tj5 eDPvX9xmc7LlVwc2PZL93C8MtA/MFYgThMwIU= Received: by 10.204.181.7 with SMTP id bw7mr2324811bkb.16.1306179712276; Mon, 23 May 2011 12:41:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.69.3 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2011 12:41:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110520011347.7C2E7E06FD@rfc-editor.org> References: <20110520011347.7C2E7E06FD@rfc-editor.org> From: "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:41:32 -0400 Message-ID: To: david_zelig@pmc-sierra.com, Ron Cohen , Thomas.Nadeau@ca.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] RFC 6240 on Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP) MIB Using SMIv2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 19:41:54 -0000 Congratulations to David, Ron, and Tom! This was a long effort that they can at least partially blame on me! :-) Cheers, Andy On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, wrote: > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0RFC 6240 > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Title: =A0 =A0 =A0Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous = Digital > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emul= ation over > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Packet (CEP) MIB Using SMIv2 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Author: =A0 =A0 D. Zelig, Ed., > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0R. Cohen, Ed., > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0T. Nadeau, Ed. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Status: =A0 =A0 Standards Track > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Stream: =A0 =A0 IETF > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Date: =A0 =A0 =A0 May 2011 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Mailbox: =A0 =A0david_zelig@pmc-sierra.com, > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0ronc@resolutenetworks.com, > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Thomas.Nadeau@ca.com > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Pages: =A0 =A0 =A067 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Characters: 129814 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: =A0 None > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I-D Tag: =A0 =A0draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-16.txt > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0URL: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6240.= txt > > This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) > for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. > In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling Synchronous > Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) circuits over a > Packet Switch Network (PSN). =A0[STANDARDS-TRACK] > > > This document is a product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Worki= ng Group of the IETF. > > This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. > > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track > protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestio= ns > for improvements. =A0Please refer to the current edition of the Internet > Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and > status of this protocol. =A0Distribution of this memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > =A0http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > =A0http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.htm= l. > For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. =A0Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > From tnadeau@lucidvision.com Mon May 23 12:47:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407E5E07D3 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dk1AzxFb6W1a for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 12:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965CAE06CD for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 12:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.254.148.198] (unknown [83.70.151.186]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84B51B87820; Mon, 23 May 2011 15:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Nadeau In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:47:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <96F96CFD-CFA9-47A7-B254-0FD6270E205F@lucidvision.com> References: <20110520011347.7C2E7E06FD@rfc-editor.org> To: "Andrew G. Malis" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, Ron Cohen , david_zelig@pmc-sierra.com, Thomas.Nadeau@ca.com Subject: Re: [PWE3] RFC 6240 on Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP) MIB Using SMIv2 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 19:47:34 -0000 Better late than never. 8) --Tom On May 23, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Congratulations to David, Ron, and Tom! This was a long effort that > they can at least partially blame on me! :-) >=20 > Cheers, > Andy >=20 > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:13 PM, wrote: >>=20 >> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >>=20 >>=20 >> RFC 6240 >>=20 >> Title: Synchronous Optical Network/Synchronous Digital >> Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) Circuit Emulation over >> Packet (CEP) MIB Using SMIv2 >> Author: D. Zelig, Ed., >> R. Cohen, Ed., >> T. Nadeau, Ed. >> Status: Standards Track >> Stream: IETF >> Date: May 2011 >> Mailbox: david_zelig@pmc-sierra.com, >> ronc@resolutenetworks.com, >> Thomas.Nadeau@ca.com >> Pages: 67 >> Characters: 129814 >> Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None >>=20 >> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pwe3-cep-mib-16.txt >>=20 >> URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6240.txt >>=20 >> This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) >> for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. >> In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling Synchronous >> Optical Network/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SONET/SDH) circuits = over a >> Packet Switch Network (PSN). [STANDARDS-TRACK] >>=20 >>=20 >> This document is a product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge = Working Group of the IETF. >>=20 >> This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. >>=20 >> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track >> protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and = suggestions >> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the = Internet >> Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and >> status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. >>=20 >> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >> http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >>=20 >> For searching the RFC series, see = http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. >> For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. >>=20 >> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. = Unless >> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >> unlimited distribution. >>=20 >>=20 >> The RFC Editor Team >> Association Management Solutions, LLC >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> pwe3 mailing list >> pwe3@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 >=20 From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Tue May 24 03:55:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89F4E0717 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 03:55:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.296 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.304, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WIB00njBJlRp for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 03:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F870E0715 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 03:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E4372E0701; Tue, 24 May 2011 03:55:17 -0700 (PDT) To: thomas.nadeau@bt.com, davidz@oversi.com, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, jari.arkko@piuha.net, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20110524105517.E4372E0701@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 03:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [PWE3] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5601 (2815) X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:55:20 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5601, "Pseudowire (PW) Management Information Base (MIB)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5601&eid=2815 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Daniel Cohn Section: Daniel Original Text ------------- pwOperStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX PwOperStatusTC MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the operational status of the PW; it does not reflect the status of the Customer Edge (CE) bound interface. It is set to down only if pwNotForwarding, psnFacingPwRxFault, or psnFacingPwTxFault indications are set in pwLocalStatus or pwRemoteStatus. It indicates 'lowerLayerDown' if the only reason for not being in the 'up' state is that either the outer tunnel or physical layer of the network side is in the 'down' state. All other states are declared based on the description of the PwOperStatusTC. " ::= { pwEntry 38 } Corrected Text -------------- pwOperStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX PwOperStatusTC MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "This object indicates the operational status of the PW; it does not reflect the status of the Customer Edge (CE) bound interface. It is set to down only if pwNotForwarding, psnPwRxFault, or psnPwTxFault indications are set in pwLocalStatus or pwRemoteStatus. It indicates 'lowerLayerDown' if the only reason for not being in the 'up' state is that either the outer tunnel or physical layer of the network side is in the 'down' state. All other states are declared based on the description of the PwOperStatusTC. " ::= { pwEntry 38 } Notes ----- psnFacingPwRxFault and psnFacingPwTxFault were replaced in RFC 5542 by psnPwRxFault and psnPwTxFault respectively Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5601 (draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-mib-14) -------------------------------------- Title : Pseudowire (PW) Management Information Base (MIB) Publication Date : July 2009 Author(s) : T. Nadeau, Ed., D. Zelig, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge INT Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From longhao@huawei.com Tue May 24 03:53:17 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAAEAE0707 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 03:53:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0LrUa9a2ejmf for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 03:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542E9E0690 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 03:53:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LLP00HL44WFI0@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for pwe3@ietf.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 18:53:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LLP00A8X4JNW0@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for pwe3@ietf.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 18:48:19 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.59) by szxeml205-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 24 May 2011 18:47:32 +0800 Received: from SZXEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.115]) by szxeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([fe80::75b7:3db9:fedc:a56d%13]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 24 May 2011 18:47:34 +0800 Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:47:31 +0000 From: Longhao X-Originating-IP: [10.147.166.53] To: "pwe3@ietf.org" Message-id: <27AADBCF3D83CF468918A05EC75F2084D0017D@szxeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: New Version Notification for draft-long-pwe3-ms-pw-availability-00.txt Thread-index: AQHME6I4ohpPzjxl2UOgsEc4Xr0Y1ZSb1qag X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 May 2011 08:04:54 -0700 Subject: [PWE3] FW: New Version Notification for draft-long-pwe3-ms-pw-availability-00.txt X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:53:17 -0000 Hi Pseudowire experts, We have posted a new individual draft for extending ms-pw signaling to support availability information. The link is: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-long-pwe3-ms-pw-availability-00.txt Any question or comment is appreciated. Thank you. Cheers, Hao Long -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 4:20 PM To: Longhao Cc: Longhao Subject: New Version Notification for draft-long-pwe3-ms-pw-availability-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-long-pwe3-ms-pw-availability-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Hao Long and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-long-pwe3-ms-pw-availability Revision: 00 Title: Multi-Segment Pseudowire Signaling with Availability Information Creation date: 2011-05-16 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 4 Abstract: This document describes a signaling mechanism for setting up a multi- segment pseudowire between different domains in case that at least one domain has the feature that bandwidth capacity is variable for different availability values. The signaling mechanism is an extension on the multi-segment pseudowire signaling [DYN-MS-PW]. The IETF Secretariat