RE: [PWE3] New PWE3 Charter Items: SPVC Interworking

[Chris Metz <chmetz at cisco.com>]

Couple of comments on this subject:

- One could argue there is precedence. IETF has been, by necessity 
recognizing and working with non-IP encaps and even signaling. Recall
Classical IPoATM (1577/2225) where routers interacted with ATMARP servers 
to move ATM addresses around so that an SVC could be setup.
We did it because operators ran IP and they wanted to dynamically support 
IP connectivity over SVCs.

- w/ spvc interworking we again have an ATM signaling message hitting a 
router where it is terminated. The router then processes this message and uses
PWE3 protocols (not ATM protocols) to complete the setup that supports the 
service the operator requires.

- You see the same faces at the different standards body meetings and there 
is both formal and informal cross-pollination of ideas which is good.

- IETF does have too narrow a constitution. We need to recognize that the 
Internet and its underlying protocol machinery is and will do more then just
move IP packets, it is moving bits that are part of revenue-generating 
services (L3, L2, voice, whatever) offered by providers. PWE3 whether we 
like it or not is a fundamental building block of this Internet bit-moving, 
money-making, convergence machine :-)

- We want to get it right. To that extent, those working on PWE3 should be 
"forced" (bad choice of words, I know, how about encouraged) to understand 
the critical aspects of what is required to support a L2 service ... so 
that it works as well as it can with the PWE3 stuff.

I can appreciate the arguments that say spvc iw does not belong in the 
IETF. But I also want to make sure that those building PWE3 boxes and the 
operators who are
and will deploy it have a solution  that works.

Let's do it in PWE3.


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