|
Hi Liu,
Mapping our discussion topic to the nomenclature of
this draft, it is:
Can this service label be a PW label when the
payload is IP?
Thanks,
Yuanlong
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:53 AM
Subject: RE： [mpls-tp] 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)"
hi,all
I reviewed section 3.4.1 in
draft-ieft-mpls-tp-framework-02, for all cient services, there is a unite
service label(s=1) to identify procotol payload type, and The mapping between protocol payload type and Service Label is
either configured or signaled.
if this
section will not changed in the future. I think that it is unnecessary to
continue to disscuss the topic.
how about
all?
best regards
liu
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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing
list
mpls-tp at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
--------------------------------------------------------
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.
|