RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

[Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.com>]

Andy and Shahram,

IMHO using only one label would, regardless
of the other issues, violate one of the requirements
 of the PWE3 Charter:

<quote>
PWE3 will not exert controls on the underlying PSN,
but only function at the endpoints of the pseudo wire, 
though the endpoints may be configured to set diffserv 
codepoints in the tunneling datagrams. 
<end quote>

Building an explicit TE tunnel for a single PW means to me 
exerting a control over the PSN (e.g., all the routers in the PSN
should recognize VC FECs etc.).

In other words, it probably can be done, but it would not be PWE3.

With best regards,
                                   Sasha Vainshtein
email:     sasha@axerra.com <mailto:sasha@axerra.com> 
tel:       +972-3-7659993 (office)
           +972-8-9254948 (res.)
           +972-58-674833 (cell.)
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:Andy.Malis@VivaceNetworks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 5:51 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'Andrew G. Malis'; 'pwe3@ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question
> 
> 
> Shahram,
> 
> Yeah, you would have to treat each VC as a separate TE tunnel and use 
> either RSVP-TE or CR-LDP for signaling (suitably extended 
> along Martini 
> lines for VC type and ID).
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> -------
> 
> At 5/8/2002 08:33 AM -0700, Shahram Davari wrote:
> >Andy,
> >
> >Sure I understand the scaling issue. But ignoring the scalability,
> >I want to know if it can be done and if so how?
> >
> >It seems that you may not be able to use LDP any more, because VC FEC
> >is meaningless to the interior LSRs. But it seems that you could use
> >ER-LSPs and therefore do TE. Right?
> >
> >Yours,
> >-Shahram
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:12 PM
> > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > Cc: 'pwe3@ietf.org'
> > > Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 question
> > >
> > >
> > > Shahram,
> > >
> > > Well, it wouldn't scale very well since every switch along
> > > the path is
> > > involved in the signaling for each VC, and you can't do traffic
> > > engineering, so I would say that's pretty much a non-starter.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > At 5/7/2002 12:02 PM -0700, Shahram Davari wrote:
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >Can we implement PWE3 with only one label (i.e., only VC label)?
> > > >
> > > >-Shahram
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >pwe3 mailing list
> > > >pwe3@ietf.org
> > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3