idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 03, 2013) is 3850 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group N. Del Regno, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft A. Malis, Ed. 4 Intended status: Informational Verizon Communications Inc 5 Expires: April 06, 2014 October 03, 2013 7 The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) 8 Implementation Survey Results 9 draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-03 11 Abstract 13 The IETF PWE3 Working Group has defined many encapsulations of 14 various layer 1 and layer 2 service-specific PDUs and circuit data. 15 In most of these encapsulations, use of the Pseudowire (PW) Control 16 Word is required. However, there are several encapsulations for 17 which the Control Word is optional, and this optionality has been 18 seen in practice to possibly introduce interoperability concerns 19 between multiple implementations of those encapsulations. This 20 survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine 21 implementation trends and the possibility of always mandating the 22 Control Word. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 06, 2014. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 2. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 2.1. Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 2.2. Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 2.3. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 2.4. Number of Pseudowires Deployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 2.5. VCCV Control Channel In Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 2.6. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use . . . . . . . 12 69 2.7. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is 70 Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 71 2.8. Open Ended Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 72 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 73 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 74 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 75 6. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 76 6.1. Respondent 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 77 6.2. Respondent 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 78 6.3. Respondent 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 79 6.4. Respondent 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 80 6.5. Respondent 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 81 6.6. Respondent 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 82 6.7. Respondent 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 83 6.8. Respondent 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 84 6.9. Respondent 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 85 6.10. Respondent 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 86 6.11. Respondent 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 87 6.12. Respondent 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 88 6.13. Respondent 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 89 6.14. Respondent 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 90 6.15. Respondent 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 91 6.16. Respondent 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 92 6.17. Respondent 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 93 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 94 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 96 1. Introduction 98 Most pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate 99 the use of the Control Word (CW) to carry information essential to 100 the emulation, to inhibit Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior, and 101 to discriminate Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) 102 from Pseudowire (PW) packets. However, some encapsulations treat the 103 Control Word as optional. As a result, implementations of the CW, 104 for encapsulations for which it is optional, vary by equipment 105 manufacturer, equipment model and service provider network. 106 Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports 107 three Control Channel (CC) types and multiple Connectivity 108 Verification (CV) Types. This flexibility has led to reports of 109 interoperability issues within deployed networks and associated 110 drafts to attempt to remedy the situation. 112 The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently 113 optional are: 115 o Ethernet Tagged Mode [RFC4448] 117 o Ethernet Raw Mode [RFC4448] 119 o PPP [RFC4618] 121 o HDLC [RFC4618] 123 o Frame Relay Port Mode [RFC4618] 125 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) [RFC4717] 127 Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085] defines 128 three Control Channel types for MPLS PW's: Type 1, using the 129 pseudowire Control Word, Type 2, using the Router Alert (RA) Label, 130 and Type 3, using TTL Expiration (e.g. MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1). 131 While Type 2 (RA Label) is indicated as being "the preferred mode of 132 VCCV operation when the Control Word is not present," RFC 5085 does 133 not indicate a mandatory Control Channel to ensure interoperable 134 implementations. The closest it comes to mandating a control channel 135 is the requirement to support Type 1 (Control Word) whenever the 136 control word is present. As such, the three options yield seven 137 implementation permutations (assuming you have to support at least 138 one Control Channel type to provide VCCV). Due to these 139 permutations, interoperability challenges have been identified by 140 several VCCV users. 142 In order to assess the best approach to address the observed 143 interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit 144 feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding 145 implementation. This document presents the survey questionnaire and 146 the information returned by the user community who participated. 148 1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview 150 Per the direction of the PWE3 Working Group chairs, a survey was 151 created to sample the nature of implementations of pseudowires, with 152 specific emphasis on Control Word usage, and VCCV, with emphasis on 153 Control Channel and Control Type usage. The survey consisted of a 154 series of questions based on direction of the WG chairs and the 155 survey opened to the public on November 4, 2010. The survey was 156 conducted using the SurveyMonkey tool, http://www.surveymonkey.com . 157 The survey ran from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011 and was 158 repeatedly publicized on the PWE3 email list over that period. 160 The editors took precautions to ensure the validity of the sample and 161 the data. Specifically, only responses with recognizable non-vendor 162 company-affiliated email addresses were accepted. Unrecognizable or 163 personal email addresses would have been contacted to determine their 164 validity, but none were received. Only one response was received 165 from each responding company. If multiple responses from a company 166 had been received, they would have been contacted to determine 167 whether the responses were duplicative or additive. This, however, 168 did not occur. 170 1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form 172 The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following information 173 about user implementations (the lists of implementation choices were 174 taken verbatim from the survey): 176 - Responding Organization. No provisions were made for anonymous 177 responses, as all responses required a valid email address in order 178 to validate the survey response. However, the results herein are 179 reported anonymously, except for an alphabetic list of participating 180 organizations in Section 2.2. 182 - Of the various encapsulations (and options therein) known at the 183 time, including the WG draft for Fiber Channel, draft-ietf-pwe3-fc- 184 encap (now [RFC6307]), which were implemented by the respondent. 185 These included: 187 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 189 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 191 o SAToP - RFC 4553 192 o PPP - RFC 4618 194 o HDLC - RFC 4618 196 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 198 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 200 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 202 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 204 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 206 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 208 o CEP - RFC 4842 210 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 212 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 214 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] 216 - Approximately how many pseudowires of each type were deployed. 217 Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy, could 218 just respond "In-Use" instead. 220 - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicated 221 which Control Channel [RFC5085] was in use (see Section 1 for a 222 discussion of these Control Channels). The options listed were: 224 o Control Word (Type 1) 226 o Router Alert Label (Type 2) 228 o TTL Expiry (Type 3) 230 - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate 231 which Connectivity Verification types [RFC5085] were in use. The 232 options were: 234 o Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Ping 236 o Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping 238 - For each encapsulation type for which the use of the Control Word 239 is optional, the respondents could indicated the encapsulation for 240 which Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether it 241 was in use in the network. The encapsulations listed were: 243 o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 245 o Ethernet (Raw Mode) 247 o PPP 249 o HDLC 251 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) 253 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 255 - Finally, a freeform entry was provided for the respondent to 256 provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV 257 interoperability challenges, the survey or any network/vendor details 258 they wished to share. 260 1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights 262 There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity 263 requirements in Section 1.1. The responding companies are listed 264 below in Section 2.2. 266 2. Survey Results 268 2.1. Summary of Results 270 Prior to this survey, there was considerable speculation about 271 whether the Control Word could always be mandated, with several 272 proposals to do so. However, the survey showed that there was 273 considerable deployment of PWs that did not use the the CW. The 274 publication of this survey serves as a reminder of the extent of PWs 275 without the CW in use, and hence a reminder that the CW-less modes 276 cannot be deprecated in the near future. 278 2.2. Respondents 280 The following companies, listed here alphabetically as received in 281 the survey responses, participated in the PW/VCCV Implementation 282 Survey. Responses were only solicited from non-vendors (users and 283 service providers), and no vendors responded (although if they had, 284 their response would not have been included). The data provided has 285 been aggregated. No specific company's response will be detailed 286 herein. 288 o AboveNet 290 o AMS-IX 292 o Bright House Networks 294 o Cox Communications 296 o Deutsche Telekom AG 298 o Easynet Global Services 300 o France Telecom Orange 302 o Internet Solution 304 o MTN South Africa 306 o OJSC MegaFon 308 o Superonline 310 o Telecom New Zealand 312 o Telstra Corporation 314 o Time Warner Cable 316 o Tinet 318 o Verizon 320 o Wipro Technologies 322 2.3. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented 324 The following question was asked: "In your network in general, across 325 all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your 326 company has implemented." Of all responses, the following list shows 327 the percentage of responses for each encapsulation: 329 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5% 331 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4% 333 o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8% 335 o PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8% 336 o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.9% 338 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 17.6% 340 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 41.2% 342 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9% 344 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6% 346 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9% 348 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0% 350 o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0% 352 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8% 354 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8% 356 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] = 357 5.9% 359 2.4. Number of Pseudowires Deployed 361 The following question was asked: "Approximately how many pseudowires 362 are deployed of each encapsulation type. Note, this should be the 363 number of pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned 364 to do so." The following list shows the number of pseudowires in use 365 for each encapsulation: 367 o Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861 369 o Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231 371 o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050 373 o PPP - RFC 4618 = 500 375 o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0 377 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002 379 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959 381 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000 383 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103 384 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 386 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 388 o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0 390 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600 392 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000 394 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] = 0 396 In the above responses, on several occasions the response was in the 397 form of "> XXXXX" where the response indicated a number greater than 398 the one provided. Where applicable, the number itself was used in 399 the sums above. For example, ">20K" and "20K+" yielded 20K. 401 Additionally, the following encapsulations were listed as "In-Use" 402 with no quantity provided: 404 o Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses 406 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response 408 o TDMoIP: 1 Response 410 2.5. VCCV Control Channel In Use 412 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV 413 Control Channel is used for each encapsulation type. Understanding 414 that users may have different networks with varying implementations, 415 for your network in general, please select all which apply." The 416 numbers below indicate the number of responses. The responses were: 418 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 420 * Control Word (Type 1) = 7 422 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3 424 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3 426 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 428 * Control Word (Type 1) = 8 430 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4 431 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4 433 o SAToP - RFC 4553 435 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 437 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 439 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 441 o PPP - RFC 4618 443 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 445 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 447 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 449 o HDLC - RFC 4618 451 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 453 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 455 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 457 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 459 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 461 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 463 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 465 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 467 * Control Word (Type 1) = 3 469 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 471 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2 473 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 475 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 477 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 478 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 480 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 482 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 484 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 486 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1 488 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 490 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 492 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1 494 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 496 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 498 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 500 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 502 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 504 o CEP - RFC 4842 506 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 508 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 510 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 512 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 514 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 516 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 518 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1 520 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 522 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 524 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 525 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 527 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] 529 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 531 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 533 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 535 2.6. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use 537 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV 538 Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each 539 encapsulation type." Note that BFD was not one of the choices. The 540 responses were as follows: 542 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 544 * ICMP Ping = 5 546 * LSP Ping = 11 548 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 550 * ICMP Ping = 6 552 * LSP Ping = 11 554 o SAToP - RFC 4553 556 * ICMP Ping = 0 558 * LSP Ping = 2 560 o PPP - RFC 4618 562 * ICMP Ping = 0 564 * LSP Ping = 0 566 o HDLC - RFC 4618 568 * ICMP Ping = 0 570 * LSP Ping = 0 572 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 573 * ICMP Ping = 0 575 * LSP Ping = 1 577 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 579 * ICMP Ping = 2 581 * LSP Ping = 5 583 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 585 * ICMP Ping = 0 587 * LSP Ping = 1 589 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 591 * ICMP Ping = 0 593 * LSP Ping = 3 595 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 597 * ICMP Ping = 0 599 * LSP Ping = 1 601 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 603 * ICMP Ping = 0 605 * LSP Ping = 0 607 o CEP - RFC 4842 609 * ICMP Ping = 0 611 * LSP Ping = 0 613 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 615 * ICMP Ping = 0 617 * LSP Ping = 1 619 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 620 * ICMP Ping = 0 622 * LSP Ping = 1 624 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] 626 * ICMP Ping = 0 628 * LSP Ping = 0 630 2.7. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is Optional 632 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate your 633 network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations 634 for which the Control Word is optional." The responses were: 636 o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 638 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 13 640 * Used in Network = 6 642 o Ethernet (Raw Mode) 644 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 14 646 * Used in Network = 7 648 o PPP 650 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 5 652 * Used in Network = 0 654 o HDLC 656 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 4 658 * Used in Network = 0 660 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) 662 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 3 664 * Used in Network = 1 666 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 667 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 5 669 * Used in Network = 1 671 2.8. Open Ended Question 673 Space was provided for user feedback. The following instructions 674 were given: "Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding 675 PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this 676 survey or any network/vendor details you wish to share." Below are 677 the responses, made anonymous. The responses are otherwise provided 678 here verbatim. 680 1. BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be 681 required for PW redundancy purpose) 683 2. Using CV is not required at the moment 685 3. COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple 686 vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV 687 Control Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor 688 platforms. This will provide COMPANY with significant advantages 689 in reduced operational overheads when handling cross-domain 690 faults. Having a uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY 691 multi-vendor network leads to: o Reduced operational cost and 692 complexity o Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible 693 VCCV implementations. o Increased end-end service availability 694 when handing faults. In addition, currently some of COMPANY 695 deployed VCCV traffic flows (on some vendor platforms) are not 696 guaranteed to follow those of the customer's application traffic 697 (a key operational requirement). As a result, the response from 698 the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect the status of the 699 circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the operational 700 status of our networks. An in-band method is highly preferred, 701 with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit Ping 702 using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with 703 each of COMPANY vendors. 705 4. PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW 706 channel. Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW 707 VCCV using BFD is another better option. Interoperability 708 challenges are with Ethernet OAM mechanism. 710 5. We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS 711 ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over 712 IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson 713 Media Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing 714 configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is 715 done for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS 716 encapsulated ATM packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for 717 transporting 2G/3G traffic from network such as Node-B to RNC's 718 over IP/MPLS backbone core network. QoS marking is done for 719 getting guaranteed bandwidth treatment in the core for these MPLS 720 encapsulated ATM packets. In addition to basic L2VPN service 721 configuration, these traffic are routed via MPLS TE tunnels with 722 dedicated path and bandwidth defined to avoid bandwidth related 723 congestion. 725 6. EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV 726 control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. 727 How can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of 728 PW without VCCV in such cases? 730 7. I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience 731 interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space 732 who are only implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who 733 have tailed their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul 734 space and mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space. 735 That's all I've got. 737 3. Security Considerations 739 As this document is an informational report of the PW/VCCV User 740 Implementation Survey results, no protocol security considerations 741 are introduced. 743 4. IANA Considerations 745 This document has no actions for IANA. 747 5. Acknowledgements 749 We would like to thank the chairs of the PWE3 Working Group for their 750 guidance and review of the Survey questions. We would also like to 751 sincerely thank those listed in Section 2.2. who took the time and 752 effort to participate. 754 6. Appendix 756 The detailed responses are included in this appendix. The respondent 757 contact info has been removed. 759 6.1. Respondent 1 761 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 762 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 764 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 766 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 767 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 768 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 769 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 770 but cannot provide a number. 772 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 423 774 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 775 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 776 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 777 please select all which apply. 779 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 781 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 782 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 784 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 786 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 787 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 789 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 790 Mode) 792 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 794 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 795 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 796 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 798 No Response 800 6.2. Respondent 2 802 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 803 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 805 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 807 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 809 SAToP - RFC 4553 811 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 812 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 813 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 814 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 815 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 816 but cannot provide a number. 818 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 5000 820 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 822 SAToP - RFC 4553 - 50 824 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - 1600 826 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 827 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 828 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 829 please select all which apply. 831 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 832 Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) 834 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 835 Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) 837 CESoPSN - RFC 5086: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 839 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 840 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 842 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 844 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 846 SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping 848 CESoPSN - RFC 5086: LSP Ping 850 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 851 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 853 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 854 Mode) 856 Used in Network: No Response 857 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 858 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 859 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 861 I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience interop 862 challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space who are only 863 implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who have tailed their 864 MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul space and mandatory CW 865 have been known to fall into this space. That's all I've got. 867 6.3. Respondent 3 869 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 870 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 872 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 874 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 876 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 878 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 880 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 881 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 882 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 883 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 884 but cannot provide a number. 886 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 800 888 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50 890 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2 892 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2 894 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 895 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 896 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 897 please select all which apply. 899 No Response 901 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 902 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 904 No Response 905 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 906 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 908 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 909 Mode) 911 Used in Network: No Response 913 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 914 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 915 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 917 No Response 919 6.4. Respondent 4 921 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 922 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 924 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 926 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 928 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 929 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 930 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 931 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 932 but cannot provide a number. 934 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 936 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 200 938 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 939 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 940 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 941 please select all which apply. 943 No Response 945 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 946 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 948 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 950 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 951 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 952 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 954 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 955 Mode) 957 Used in Network: No Response 959 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 960 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 961 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 963 EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV 964 control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. How 965 can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of PW 966 without VCCV in such cases? 968 6.5. Respondent 5 970 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 971 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 973 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 975 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 977 PPP - RFC 4618 979 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 981 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 983 Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] 985 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 986 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 987 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 988 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 989 but cannot provide a number. 991 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 4000 993 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 994 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 995 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 996 please select all which apply. 998 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 999 Label (Type 2) 1001 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1002 Label (Type 2) 1004 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1005 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1007 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1009 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1010 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1012 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1013 Mode) 1015 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1017 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1018 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1019 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1021 No Response 1023 6.6. Respondent 6 1025 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1026 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1028 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1030 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1032 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1033 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1034 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1035 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1036 but cannot provide a number. 1038 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+ 1040 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 500 1042 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1043 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1044 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1045 please select all which apply. 1047 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1049 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1051 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1052 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1054 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1056 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1058 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1059 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1061 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1062 Mode) 1064 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1066 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1067 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1068 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1070 No Response 1072 6.7. Respondent 7 1074 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1075 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1077 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1079 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1081 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1082 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1083 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1084 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1085 but cannot provide a number. 1087 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 20 1089 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 100 1091 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1092 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1093 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1094 please select all which apply. 1096 No Response 1098 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1099 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1101 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1103 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1105 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1106 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1108 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1109 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1111 Used in Network: No Response 1113 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1114 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1115 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1117 We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS 1118 ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over IP/ 1119 MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson Media 1120 Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing 1121 configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is done 1122 for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM 1123 packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for transporting 2G/3G traffic 1124 from network such as Node-B to RNC's over IP/MPLS backbone core 1125 network. QoS marking is done for getting guaranteed bandwidth 1126 treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM packets. In 1127 addition to basic L2VPN service configuration, these traffic are 1128 routed via MPLS TE tunnels with dedicated path and bandwidth defined 1129 to avoid bandwidth related congestion. 1131 6.8. Respondent 8 1133 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1134 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1136 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1138 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 1140 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 1142 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1143 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1144 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1145 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1146 but cannot provide a number. 1148 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use 1150 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 - In-Use 1152 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - In-Use 1154 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1155 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1156 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1157 please select all which apply. 1159 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1161 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: Router Alert Label (Type 2) 1163 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1164 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1166 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1168 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1170 TDMoIP - RFC 5087: LSP Ping 1172 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1173 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1175 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell 1176 Mode) 1178 Used in Network: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1180 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1181 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1182 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1184 PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW channel. 1185 Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW VCCV using 1186 BFD is another better option. Interoperability challenges are with 1187 Ethernet OAM mechanism. 1189 6.9. Respondent 9 1190 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1191 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1193 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1195 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1197 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1198 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1199 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1200 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1201 but cannot provide a number. 1203 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 19385 1205 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 15757 1207 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1208 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1209 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1210 please select all which apply. 1212 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1) 1214 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1215 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1217 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1219 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1220 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1222 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1223 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1225 Used in Network: No Response 1227 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1228 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1229 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1231 No Response 1233 6.10. Respondent 10 1235 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1236 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1238 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1240 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1241 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1242 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1243 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1244 but cannot provide a number. 1246 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 325 1248 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1249 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1250 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1251 please select all which apply. 1253 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1255 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1256 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1258 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1260 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1261 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1263 Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response 1265 Used in Network: No Response 1267 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1268 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1269 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1271 No Response 1273 6.11. Respondent 11 1275 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1276 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1278 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1280 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1281 PPP - RFC 4618 HDLC - RFC 4618 1283 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1285 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1286 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1287 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1288 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1289 but cannot provide a number. 1291 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 2000 1293 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1295 PPP - RFC 4618 - 500 1297 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 200 1299 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1300 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1301 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1302 please select all which apply. 1304 No Response 1306 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1307 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1309 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1311 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1313 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1315 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1316 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1318 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1319 Mode), PPP, HDLC 1321 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 1323 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1324 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1325 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1327 No Response 1329 6.12. Respondent 12 1331 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1332 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1334 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1336 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1337 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1338 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1339 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1340 but cannot provide a number. 1342 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50000 1344 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1345 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1346 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1347 please select all which apply. 1349 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1350 Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1352 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1353 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1355 No Response 1357 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1358 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1360 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1361 Mode) 1363 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1365 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1366 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1367 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1369 No Response 1371 6.13. Respondent 13 1373 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1374 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1376 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1377 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1379 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1381 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1382 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1383 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1384 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1385 but cannot provide a number. 1387 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 3 1389 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 10-20 1391 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 3 1393 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1394 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1395 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1396 please select all which apply. 1398 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry 1399 (Type 3) 1401 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry (Type 1402 3) 1404 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry 1405 (Type 3) 1407 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1408 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1410 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1412 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1414 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1416 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1417 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1419 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1420 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1422 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), Frame 1423 Relay (Port Mode) 1424 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1425 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1426 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1428 No Response 1430 6.14. Respondent 14 1432 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1433 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1435 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1437 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1439 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1440 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1441 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1442 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1443 but cannot provide a number. 1445 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 150 1447 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1449 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1450 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1451 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1452 please select all which apply. 1454 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1455 Label (Type 2) 1457 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1458 Label (Type 2) 1460 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1461 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1463 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1465 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1467 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1468 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1470 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1471 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode) 1472 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1474 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1475 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1476 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1478 No Response 1480 6.15. Respondent 15 1482 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1483 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1485 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1487 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1489 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1491 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1493 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1494 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1495 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1496 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1497 but cannot provide a number. 1499 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 20,000 1501 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 1503 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000 1505 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 20,000 1507 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1508 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1509 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1510 please select all which apply. 1512 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1514 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1516 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1518 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1519 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1520 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1522 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1524 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1526 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1528 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1530 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1531 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1533 Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response 1535 Used in Network: No Response 1537 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1538 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1539 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1541 COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple 1542 vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV Control 1543 Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor platforms. This 1544 will provide COMPANY with significant advantages in reduced 1545 operational overheads when handling cross-domain faults. Having a 1546 uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY multi-vendor network 1547 leads to: o Reduced operational cost and complexity o Reduced OSS 1548 development to coordinate incompatible VCCV implementations. o 1549 Increased end-end service availability when handing faults. In 1550 addition, currently some of COMPANY deployed VCCV traffic flows (on 1551 some vendor platforms) are not guaranteed to follow those of the 1552 customer's application traffic (a key operational requirement). As a 1553 result, the response from the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect 1554 the status of the circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the 1555 operational status of our networks. An in-band method is highly 1556 preferred, with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit 1557 Ping using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with 1558 each of COMPANY vendors. 1560 6.16. Respondent 16 1562 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1563 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1565 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1566 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1568 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1569 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1570 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1571 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1572 but cannot provide a number. 1574 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1576 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1578 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1579 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1580 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1581 please select all which apply. 1583 No Response 1585 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1586 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1588 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1590 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1592 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1593 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1595 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1596 Mode) 1598 Used in Network: No Response 1600 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1601 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1602 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1604 Using CV is not required at the moment 1606 6.17. Respondent 17 1608 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1609 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1611 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1613 SAToP - RFC 4553 1614 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 1616 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1618 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1620 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1622 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 1624 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 1626 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1627 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1628 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1629 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1630 but cannot provide a number. 1632 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k 1634 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use 1636 SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k 1638 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k 1640 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k 1642 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k 1644 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k 1646 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - >20k 1648 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - >20k 1650 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1651 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1652 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1653 please select all which apply. 1655 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1657 SAToP - RFC 4553: Control Word (Type 1) 1659 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1) 1661 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1) 1662 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1) 1664 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1) 1666 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1667 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1669 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1671 SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping 1673 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1675 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1677 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1679 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1681 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1682 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1684 Supported by Network/Equipment: ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1686 Used in Network: No Response 1688 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1689 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1690 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1692 BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be 1693 required for PW redundancy purpose) 1695 7. Informative References 1697 [RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, 1698 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS 1699 Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006. 1701 [RFC4618] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis, 1702 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level 1703 Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618, 1704 September 2006. 1706 [RFC4717] Martini, L., Jayakumar, J., Bocci, M., El-Aawar, N., 1707 Brayley, J., and G. Koleyni, "Encapsulation Methods for 1708 Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS 1709 Networks", RFC 4717, December 2006. 1711 [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual 1712 Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control 1713 Channel for Pseudowires", December 2007. 1715 [RFC6307] Black, D., Dunbar, L., Roth, M., and R. Solomon, 1716 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel 1717 Traffic over MPLS Networks", RFC 6307, April 2012. 1719 Authors' Addresses 1721 Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno (editor) 1722 Verizon Communications Inc 1723 400 International Pkwy 1724 Richardson, TX 75081 1725 US 1727 Email: nick.delregno@verizon.com 1729 Andrew G. Malis (editor) 1730 Verizon Communications Inc 1731 60 Sylvan Road 1732 Waltham, MA 02451 1733 US 1735 Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com