[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[L2tpext] Section 3.4.1 of the MPLS TP Framework I-D - Nee RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446"IANA Allocations for PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
Lucy,
I'm sorry but I don't understand your conclusion. I think your
penultimate sentence is correct but I don't understand its relevance,
and your last sentence appears to have precipitated a layer inversion.
Section 3.4.1 deals with client network layer payloads, where 'network
layer' is defined in RFC 3031 to be "synonymous with layer 3".
Thanks,
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yong Lucy [mailto:lucyyong at huawei.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:44 PM
> To: Drake, John E; 'Jiang Yuan-long'; neil.2.harrison at bt.com;
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> Cc: l2tpext at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446"IANA Allocations for
> PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
>
> Hi John,
>
> One clarification on this:
>
> When client network layer over MPLS-TP LSP directly, the
> method implies that client network layer can use this MPLS-TP
> LSP as a client network link because the LSP is a
> bidirectional point to point connection. When client traffic
> over a PW, the PW does not guarantee link characteristics.
> Therefore, the method only applies to client non-network layer.
>
> Is my understanding correct?
>
> Regards,
> Lucy
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org]
> On Behalf
> > Of Drake, John E
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:09 AM
> > To: Jiang Yuan-long; neil.2.harrison at bt.com; pwe3 at ietf.org
> > Cc: l2tpext at ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for
> > PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> >
> > Yuanlong Jiang,
> >
> > Please see section 3.4.1 of the MPLS TP Framework I-D:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-02.txt
> >
> > It describes how client network layer payloads (e.g., IP
> and MPLS) are
> > carried directly, i.e., without a pseudo-wire, over an MPLS
> TP server
> > network.
> >
> > Client non-network layer payloads still use pseudo-wires.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jiang Yuan-long [mailto:yljiang at huawei.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:21 PM
> > > To: neil.2.harrison at bt.com; pwe3 at ietf.org
> > > Cc: l2tpext at ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for
> > > PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > >
> > > Neil,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply.
> > > As Himanshu said in the last email, 0x000B is actually
> the PW type
> > > for IP, rather than L2TP PW type for IP. So I believe it is also
> > > feasible for MPLS-TP.
> > >
> > > I agree with you that there is some difficulty for MPLS
> label stack
> > > to operate in the same manner as client/server layering
> model, but
> > > an adaptation layer such as PW functions now is indispensable.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > Yuanlong Jiang
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: neil.2.harrison at bt.com
> > > To: yljiang at huawei.com ; pwe3 at ietf.org
> > > Cc: l2tpext at ietf.org
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:16 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for
> > > Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > >
> > > Hi Yuanlong Jiang,
> > >
> > > Where you said below:
> > > "I also wonder whether we should define a PW type for
> IP payload so
> > > that everything on PW is possible"
> > >
> > > This is precisely what a key consequence of MPLS-TP is,
> ie in the
> > > LDP spin of MPLS we had to define PWs (one reason being that LDP
> > > requires that IP traffic units can run native in the DP with MPLS
> > > traffic units), but given we can't have IP in the MPLS-TP
> DP and we
> > > can't have LDP mp2p merging constructs in MPLS-TP anyway
> (the latter
> > > point is all about resource management determinism) then the
> > > original driver for PWs is gone.....just a fact. So now
> everything
> > > is a PW and nothing is a PW....that is, we just have
> clients (any)
> > > of MPLS-TP.
> > >
> > > We still have a tricky issue with the S bit that is not fully
> > > understood IMO yet (S bit => sublayering, as opposed to true
> > > client/server layering), which is also related to the important
> > > topic of being able to do MPLSoverMPLS as a proper client/server
> > > relationship.
> > >
> > > So what you point out below will be the case in MPLS-TP anyway
> > > (though I'm not sure everyone is comfortable with the
> acceptance of
> > > this fact yet)
> > >
> > > regards, Neil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org
> > > [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jiang Yuan-long
> > > Sent: 18 August 2009 14:01
> > > To: pwe3 at ietf.org
> > > Cc: l2tpext at ietf.org
> > > Subject: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA
> Allocations for
> > > Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, all:
> > >
> > > I came accross an error in RFC 4446 "IANA
> Allocations for
> > > Pseudowire
> > > Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)".
> > >
> > > In Sec 3.2, it says:
> > > " 0x000B IP Layer2 Transport
> > > [RFC3032]"
> > >
> > > it should be:
> > > 0x000B IP Layer2 Transport
> > > [draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ip]
> > >
> > > The same problem also exists in web page version
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters
> > > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters> .
> > >
> > > I wonder how about the status of this expired
> WG draft, will any
> > > more work
> > > continue on this document or just expired as it is?
> > > I also wonder whether we should define a PW
> type for IP payload so
> > > that
> > > everything on PW is possible.
> > > Any comments?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yuanlong Jiang
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > pwe3 at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>
>