Re: [PWE3] Flow Label in fat-pw

[Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com>]

Stewart

There are two correct ways of using sequencing with inverse muxing.

One is to define identifiable flows (fat PWs) and to use SN per flow.

The other is to not bother about flows and USE the SN per PW (PW-bonding).

Y(J)S

-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant at cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 09:11
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: Lucy Yong; pwe3 at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Flow Label in fat-pw

Lucy is correct, we need to turn off s/n or we will have problems.

This is because the s/n is defined per pw not per flow.

Stewart

Yaakov Stein wrote:
>
> Lucy
>
>  
>
> Can you explain why you believe there will be misordering ?
>
>  
>
> Y(J)S
>
>  
>
> *From:* pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Lucy Yong
> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2009 03:39
> *To:* pwe3 at ietf.org
> *Subject:* [PWE3] Flow Label in fat-pw
>
>  
>
> Hi Bryant,
>
>  
>
> One comment about using flow label over a pseudowire is:  if the 
> control word is used in a pseudowire and non-zero sequence number is 
> inserted, when using flow labels, it may cause the egress PE burden to 
> perform packet sequencing and increase the possibility of packet out 
> of order. Therefore, it is better to mention in the draft that when 
> the control word presents and non-zero sequence number is used, the 
> flow label should not be used or if it is used, the constant flow 
> label should be used.
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> Lucy
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>