Re: [PWE3] draft-martini-pwe3-pw-switching-03.txt as WG draft? (fwd)

[Rahul Aggarwal <rahul at juniper.net>]

Hi Luca,

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Luca Martini wrote:

> Rahul,
>
> This draft really has no relation to the automatic placing of PW along a
> path. It does not offer any solution in that respect other then manual
> provisioning.

Such automatic placing of PWs along a path is *one* of the requirements of
MS-PWs. Its not the only requirement. The solution in this draft can be
used to meet a *subset* of the requirements of MS-PWs and in that regard
it is one of the candidate MS-PW solutions and should be treated the same
way as the WG is treating the other MS-PW solutions.

> This is the basis for Interworking the control plane of many PWs , such
> as L2TPv3 , LDP( FEC 128/129) , and static PWs.

Other than MS-PWs, is there another application for such inter-working ?

>
> Regardless of what protocol we choose to signal multi hop PWs , we must
> have a document that defines the control plane signaling Interworking
> between different PW setup protocols.
>

And what is the reason for defining such inter-working other than to setup
MS-PWs ?

rahul

> Luca
>
>
>
> Rahul Aggarwal wrote:
>
> >Hi Stewart,
> >
> >On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>The authors of
> >>
> >>draft-martini-pwe3-pw-switching-03.txt
> >>
> >>have asked that the draft be adopted as a WG draft.
> >>
> >>What is the consensus of the PWE3 WG?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The above draft is one of the candidate solutions in the MH-PW solution
> >space.
> >
> >To quote you and Danny from your email that described the way forward
> >after the discussion on draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw:
> >
> >"The issue then becomes one of how to move forward.
> >
> >There are a number of candidate signaling protocols, and
> >we propose that we set a limit of three weeks before the
> >next IETF (i.e. -00 cutoff) for any further candidate
> >proposals to address the MS-PW signaling requirements.
> >
> >Evaluating the candidate signaling protocols and testing the
> >consensus of the WG on the best way to proceed will be
> >the major work item at the next IETF.
> >
> >Stewart/Danny"
> >
> >The above implies that *no* candidate signaling solution will be
> >adopted by the WG in the domain of MH-PWs till all the candidate
> >signaling protocols are discussed in the next IETF.
> >
> >So let us first discuss all the MH-PW signaling solutions
> >and the applicability of each before deciding which one to adopt and for
> >which set of requirements. Until then this draft or other drafts in the
> >MH-PW solution space, should not be adopted as WG documents.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >rahul
> >
> >
> >
> >>- Stewart
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>pwe3 mailing list
> >>pwe3 at ietf.org
> >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >pwe3 mailing list
> >pwe3 at ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >
> >
>

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