RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Sasha,

I don't think in this case all the routers in the PSN
need to recognize the VC FEC.  You could set the U/F bits to 1
in VC FEC, therefore no need for the interior routers to
recognize the VC FEC.


-Shahram



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sasha Vainshtein [mailto:Sasha@AXERRA.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 1:59 PM
> To: 'Andrew G. Malis'; Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'pwe3@ietf.org'; Danny McPherson (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] PWE3 question
> 
> 
> 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