< draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-00.txt   draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-01.txt >
Network Working Group N. Del Regno, Ed. Network Working Group N. Del Regno, Ed.
Internet-Draft Verizon Communications Inc Internet-Draft A. Malis, Ed.
Intended status: Informational April 17, 2012 Intended status: Informational Verizon Communications Inc
Expires: October 19, 2012 Expires: December 29, 2013 June 27, 2013
The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
Implementation Survey Results Implementation Survey Results
draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-00 draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-01
Abstract Abstract
Most Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate Most pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate
the use of the Control Word (CW) in order to better emulate the the use of the Control Word (CW) to carry information essential to
services for which the encapsulations have been defined. However, the emulation, to inhibit ECMP behavior, and to discriminate OAM from
some encapulations treat the Control Word as optional. As a result, PW packets. However, some encapsulations treat the Control Word as
implementations of the CW, for encapsulations for which it is optional. As a result, implementations of the CW, for encapsulations
optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment model and service for which it is optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment
provider network. Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity model and service provider network. Similarly, Virtual Circuit
Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) types and Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC)
multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types. This flexibility has types and multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types. This
led to reports of interoperability issues within deployed networks flexibility has led to reports of interoperability issues within
and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the situation. This deployed networks and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the
survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine situation. This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted
implementation trends. The survey and results is presented herein. to determine implementation trends. The survey and results is
presented herein.
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Number of Pseudowires Deployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Number of Pseudowires Deployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. VCCV Control Channel In Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4. VCCV Control Channel In Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use . . . . . . . 12 2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use . . . . . . . 11
2.6. Control Word Support for Encaps for which CW is 2.6. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is
Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.7. Open Ended Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.7. Open Ended Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Respondent 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.1. Respondent 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Respondent 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.2. Respondent 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.3. Respondent 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.3. Respondent 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.4. Respondent 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.4. Respondent 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.5. Respondent 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.5. Respondent 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.6. Respondent 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.6. Respondent 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.7. Respondent 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.7. Respondent 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6.8. Respondent 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.8. Respondent 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.9. Respondent 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.9. Respondent 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.10. Respondent 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.10. Respondent 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.11. Respondent 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.11. Respondent 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.12. Respondent 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.12. Respondent 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.13. Respondent 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.13. Respondent 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.14. Respondent 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.14. Respondent 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.15. Respondent 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.15. Respondent 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.16. Respondent 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.16. Respondent 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.17. Respondent 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6.17. Respondent 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF has defined many encapsulations of various layer 1 and layer The IETF PWE3 Working Group has defined many encapsulations of
2 service-specific PDUs and circuit data. Within these various layer 1 and layer 2 service-specific PDUs and circuit data.
encapsulations, there are often several modes of encapsulation which In most of these encapsulations, use of the PW Control Word is
have differing requirements in order to fully emulate the service. required. However, there are several encapsulations for which the
As such, the use of the PWE3 Control Word is mandated in many of the Control Word is optional, and this optionality has been seen in
encapsulations, but not all. This can present interoperability practice to possibly introduce interoperability concerns between
issues related to A) Control Word use and B) VCCV Control Channel multiple implementations of those encapsulations.
negotiation in mixed implementation environments.
The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently
optional are: optional are:
o Ethernet Tagged Mode o Ethernet Tagged Mode [RFC4448]
o Ethernet Raw Mode o Ethernet Raw Mode [RFC4448]
o PPP o PPP [RFC4618]
o HDLC o HDLC [RFC4618]
o Frame Relay Port Mode o Frame Relay Port Mode [RFC4618]
o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) [RFC4717]
[RFC5085] defines three Control Channel types for MPLS PW's: Type 1, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085] defines
using the Pseudowire Control Word, Type 2, using the Router Alert three Control Channel types for MPLS PW's: Type 1, using the
Label, and Type 3, using TTL Expiration (e.g. MPLS PW Label with TTL pseudowire Control Word, Type 2, using the Router Alert (RA) Label,
== 1). While Type 2 (RA Label) is indicated as being "the preferred and Type 3, using TTL Expiration (e.g. MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1).
mode of VCCV operation when the Control Word is not present," RFC While Type 2 (RA Label) is indicated as being "the preferred mode of
5085 does not indicate a mandatory Control Channel to ensure VCCV operation when the Control Word is not present," RFC 5085 does
interoperable implementations. The closest it comes to mandating a not indicate a mandatory Control Channel to ensure interoperable
control channel is the requirement to support Type 1 (Control Word) implementations. The closest it comes to mandating a control channel
whenever the control word is present. As such, the three options is the requirement to support Type 1 (Control Word) whenever the
yield seven implementation permutations (assuming you have to support control word is present. As such, the three options yield seven
at least one Control Channel type to provide VCCV). Due to these implementation permutations (assuming you have to support at least
permuations, interoperability challenges have been identified by one Control Channel type to provide VCCV). Due to these
permutations, interoperability challenges have been identified by
several VCCV users. several VCCV users.
In order to assess the best approach to address the observed In order to assess the best approach to address the observed
interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit
feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding
implementation. This document presents the survey and the implementation. This document presents the survey and the
information returned by the user community who participated. information returned by the user community who participated.
Note that the intention of this document is to not draw conclusions
based upon these results, but rather to simply report the results to
the PWE3 working group for its use when developing other drafts.
1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview 1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview
Per the direction of the PWE3 Working Group chairs, a survey was Per the direction of the PWE3 Working Group chairs, a survey was
created to sample the nature of implementations of Pseudowires, with created to sample the nature of implementations of pseudowires, with
specific emphasis on Control Word usage, and VCCV, with emphasis on specific emphasis on Control Word usage, and VCCV, with emphasis on
Control Channel and Control Type usage. The survey consisted of a Control Channel and Control Type usage. The survey consisted of a
series of questions based on direction of the WG chairs and the series of questions based on direction of the WG chairs and the
survey opened to the public on November 4, 2010. The URL for the survey opened to the public on November 4, 2010. The survey was
survey (now closed) was http://www.surveymonkey.com/pwe3/. The conducted using the SurveyMonkey tool, http://www.surveymonkey.com .
survey ran from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011. The survey ran from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011 and was
repeatedly publicized on the pwe3 email list over that period.
1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form 1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form
The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following information The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following information
about user implementations: about user implementations (the lists of implementation choices were
taken verbatim from the survey):
- Responding Organziation. No provisions were made for anonymity. - Responding Organization. No provisions were made for anonymity.
All responses required a valid email address in order to validate the All responses required a valid email address in order to validate the
survey response. survey response.
- Of the various encapsulations (and options therein) known at the - Of the various encapsulations (and options therein) known at the
time, including the WG draft for Fiber Channel), which were time, including the WG draft for Fiber Channel, now [RFC6307]), which
implemented b the respondent. These included: were implemented by the respondent. These included:
o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
o SAToP - RFC 4553 o SAToP - RFC 4553
o PPP - RFC 4618 o PPP - RFC 4618
o HDLC - RFC 4618 o HDLC - RFC 4618
skipping to change at page 5, line 46 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
o HDLC - RFC 4618 o HDLC - RFC 4618
o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
o CEP - RFC 4842 o CEP - RFC 4842
o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086
o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap
- Approximately how many Pseudowires of each type were deployed. - Approximately how many pseudowires of each type were deployed.
Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy, could Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy, could
just respond "In-Use" instead. just respond "In-Use" instead.
- For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicated - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicated
which Control Channel was in use. The options listed were: which Control Channel was in use. The options listed were:
o Control Word (Type 1) o Control Word (Type 1)
o Router Alert Label (Type 2) o Router Alert Label (Type 2)
o TTL Expiry (Type 3) o TTL Expiry (Type 3)
- For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate
which Connectivity Verification types were in use. The options were: which Connectivity Verification types were in use. The options were:
o ICMP Ping o ICMP Ping
o LSP Ping o LSP Ping
- For each encapsulation type for which the use of the Control Word - For each encapsulation type for which the use of the Control Word
is optional, the respondents could indicated the encaps for which is optional, the respondents could indicated the encapsulation for
Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether it was which Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether it
in use in the network. The encaps listed were: was in use in the network. The encapsulations listed were:
o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) o Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
o Ethernet (Raw Mode) o Ethernet (Raw Mode)
o PPP o PPP
o HDLC o HDLC
o Frame Relay (Port Mode) o Frame Relay (Port Mode)
skipping to change at page 6, line 46 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
o Ethernet (Raw Mode) o Ethernet (Raw Mode)
o PPP o PPP
o HDLC o HDLC
o Frame Relay (Port Mode) o Frame Relay (Port Mode)
o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
- Finally, a freeform entry was provided for the respondent to - Finally, a freeform entry was provided for the respondent to
provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV
interoperability challenges, the survey or any network/vendor details interoperability challenges, the survey or any network/vendor details
they wished to share. they wished to share.
1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights 1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights
There were 17 valid responses to the survey. The responding There were 17 valid responses to the survey. The responding
companies are listed below in Section 2.1. companies are listed below in Section 2.1.
2. Survey Results 2. Survey Results
2.1. Respondents 2.1. Respondents
The following companies participated in the PW/VCCV Implementation The following companies, listed here alphabetically, participated in
Survey. The data provided has been aggregated. No specific the PW/VCCV Implementation Survey. Responses were only solicited
company's reponse will be detailed herein. from non-vendors (users and service providers), and no vendors
responded (although if they had, their response would not have been
o Time Warner Cable included). The data provided has been aggregated. No specific
company's response will be detailed herein.
o Bright House Networks
o Tinet
o AboveNet o AboveNet
o Telecom New Zealand o AMS-IX
o Bright House Networks
o Cox Communications o Cox Communications
o MTN South Africa o Deutsche Telekom AG
o Wipro Technologies o Easynet Global Services
o Verizon o France Telecom Orange
o AMS-IX o Internet Solution
o Superonline o MTN South Africa
o Deutsche Telekom AG o OJSC MegaFon
o Internet Solution o Superonline
o Easynet Global Services o Telecom New Zealand
o Telstra Corporation o Telstra Corporation
o OJSC MegaFon o Time Warner Cable
o Tinet
o France Telecom Orange o Verizon
o Wipro Technologies
2.2. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented 2.2. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented
The following question was asked: "In your network in general, across The following question was asked: "In your network in general, across
all products, please indicate which Pseudowire encapsulations your all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your
company has implemented." Of all responses, the following list shows company has implemented." Of all responses, the following list shows
the percentage of responses for each encapsulation: the percentage of responses for each encapsulation:
o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5% o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5%
o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4% o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4%
o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8% o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8%
o PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8% o PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8%
skipping to change at page 8, line 44 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0% o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0%
o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8% o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8%
o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8% o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8%
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 5.9% o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 5.9%
2.3. Number of Pseudowires Deployed 2.3. Number of Pseudowires Deployed
The following question was asked: "Approximately how many Pseudowires The following question was asked: "Approximately how many pseudowires
are deployed of each encapsulation type. Note, this should be the are deployed of each encapsulation type. Note, this should be the
number of pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned number of pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned
to do so." The following list shows the number of psudowires in use to do so." The following list shows the number of pseudowires in use
for each encapsulation: for each encapsulation:
o Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861 o Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861
o Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231 o Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231
o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050 o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050
o PPP - RFC 4618 = 500 o PPP - RFC 4618 = 500
o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0 o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0
o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002
skipping to change at page 9, line 37 skipping to change at page 8, line 48
o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 0 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 0
In the above responses, on several occasions the response was in the In the above responses, on several occasions the response was in the
form of "> XXXXX" where the response indicated a number greater than form of "> XXXXX" where the response indicated a number greater than
the one provided. Where applicable, the number itself was used in the one provided. Where applicable, the number itself was used in
the sums above. For example, ">20K" and "20K+" yielded 20K. the sums above. For example, ">20K" and "20K+" yielded 20K.
Additionally, the following encaps were listed as "In-Use" with no Additionally, the following encapsulations were listed as "In-Use"
quantity provided: with no quantity provided:
o Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses o Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses
o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response
o TDMoIP: 1 Response o TDMoIP: 1 Response
2.4. VCCV Control Channel In Use 2.4. VCCV Control Channel In Use
The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV
Control Channel is used for each encapsulation type. Understanding Control Channel is used for each encapsulation type. Understanding
that users may have different networks with varying implementations, that users may have different networks with varying implementations,
for your network in general, please select all which apply." The for your network in general, please select all which apply." The
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 skipping to change at page 13, line 41
* ICMP Ping = 0 * ICMP Ping = 0
* LSP Ping = 1 * LSP Ping = 1
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap
* ICMP Ping = 0 * ICMP Ping = 0
* LSP Ping = 0 * LSP Ping = 0
2.6. Control Word Support for Encaps for which CW is Optional 2.6. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is Optional
The following instructions were given: "Please indicate your The following instructions were given: "Please indicate your
network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations
for which the Control Word is optional." The responses were: for which the Control Word is optional." The responses were:
o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) o Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
* Supported by Network/Equipment = 13 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 13
* Used in Network = 6 * Used in Network = 6
skipping to change at page 15, line 35 skipping to change at page 14, line 41
* Supported by Network/Equipment = 5 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 5
* Used in Network = 1 * Used in Network = 1
2.7. Open Ended Question 2.7. Open Ended Question
Space was provided for user feedback. The following instructions Space was provided for user feedback. The following instructions
were given: "Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding were given: "Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding
PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this
survey or any network/vendor details you wish to share." Below are survey or any network/vendor details you wish to share." Below are
the responses, made anonymous. the responses, made anonymous. The responses are otherwise provided
here verbatim.
1. BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be 1. BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be
required for PW redundancy purpose) required for PW redundancy purpose)
2. Using CV is not required at the moment 2. Using CV is not required at the moment
3. COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple 3. COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple
vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV
Control Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor Control Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor
platforms. This will provide COMPANY with significant advantages platforms. This will provide COMPANY with significant advantages
skipping to change at page 16, line 15 skipping to change at page 15, line 22
(a key operational requirement). As a result, the response from (a key operational requirement). As a result, the response from
the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect the status of the the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect the status of the
circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the operational circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the operational
status of our networks. An in-band method is highly preferred, status of our networks. An in-band method is highly preferred,
with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit Ping with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit Ping
using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with
each of COMPANY vendors. each of COMPANY vendors.
4. PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW 4. PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW
channel. Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW channel. Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW
VCCV using BFD is another better option. Introperbility VCCV using BFD is another better option. Interoperability
challences are with Ethernet OAM mechanism. challenges are with Ethernet OAM mechanism.
5. We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS 5. We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS
ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over
IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson
Media Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing Media Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing
configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is
done for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS done for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS
encapsulated ATM packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for encapsulated ATM packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for
transporting 2G/3G traffic from network such as Node-B to RNC's transporting 2G/3G traffic from network such as Node-B to RNC's
over IP/MPLS backbone core network. QoS marking is done for over IP/MPLS backbone core network. QoS marking is done for
skipping to change at page 16, line 47 skipping to change at page 16, line 7
7. I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience 7. I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience
interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space
who are only implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who who are only implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who
have tailed their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul have tailed their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul
space and mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space. space and mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space.
That's all I've got. That's all I've got.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
As this document is a report of the PW/VCCV User Implementation As this document is an informational report of the PW/VCCV User
Survey results, no security considerations are introduced. Implementation Survey results, no protocol security considerations
are introduced.
The editors took precautions to ensure the validity of the sample and
the data. Specifically, only responses with recognizable non-vendor
company-affiliated email addresses were accepted. Unrecognizable or
personal email addresses would have been contacted to determine their
validity, but none were received. Only one response was received
from each responding company. If multiple responses from a company
had been received, they would have been contacted to determine
whether the responses were duplicative or additive. This, however,
did not occur.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the chairs of the PWE3 Working Group for their We would like to thank the chairs of the PWE3 Working Group for their
guidance and review of the Survey questions. We would also like to guidance and review of the Survey questions. We would also like to
sincerely thank those listed in Section 2.1. who took the time and sincerely thank those listed in Section 2.1. who took the time and
effort to participate. effort to participate.
6. Appendix 6. Appendix
The detailed reponses are included in this appendix. The respondent The detailed responses are included in this appendix. The respondent
contact info has been removed. contact info has been removed.
6.1. Respondent 1 6.1. Respondent 1
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 423 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 423
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply. please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type. used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
skipping to change at page 18, line 19 skipping to change at page 17, line 33
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.2. Respondent 2 6.2. Respondent 2
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
SAToP - RFC 4553 SAToP - RFC 4553
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 CESoPSN - RFC 5086
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 5000 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 5000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
SAToP - RFC 4553 - 50 SAToP - RFC 4553 - 50
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - 1600 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - 1600
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply. please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
skipping to change at page 19, line 36 skipping to change at page 19, line 4
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience interop I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience interop
challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space who are only challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space who are only
implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who have tailed their implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who have tailed their
MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul space and mandatory CW MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul space and mandatory CW
have been known to fall into this space. That's all I've got. have been known to fall into this space. That's all I've got.
6.3. Respondent 3 6.3. Respondent 3
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 800 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 800
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2
skipping to change at page 20, line 43 skipping to change at page 20, line 10
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.4. Respondent 4 6.4. Respondent 4
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 200 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 200
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
skipping to change at page 21, line 45 skipping to change at page 21, line 13
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV
control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. How control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. How
can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of PW can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of PW
without VCCV in such cases? without VCCV in such cases?
6.5. Respondent 5 6.5. Respondent 5
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
PPP - RFC 4618 PPP - RFC 4618
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 4000 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 4000
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
skipping to change at page 22, line 51 skipping to change at page 22, line 19
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.6. Respondent 6 6.6. Respondent 6
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+ Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 500 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 500
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
skipping to change at page 23, line 52 skipping to change at page 23, line 19
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.7. Respondent 7 6.7. Respondent 7
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 20 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 20
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 100 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 100
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
skipping to change at page 25, line 13 skipping to change at page 24, line 31
from network such as Node-B to RNC's over IP/MPLS backbone core from network such as Node-B to RNC's over IP/MPLS backbone core
network. QoS marking is done for getting guaranteed bandwidth network. QoS marking is done for getting guaranteed bandwidth
treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM packets. In treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM packets. In
addition to basic L2VPN service configuration, these traffic are addition to basic L2VPN service configuration, these traffic are
routed via MPLS TE tunnels with dedicated path and bandwidth defined routed via MPLS TE tunnels with dedicated path and bandwidth defined
to avoid bandwidth related congestion. to avoid bandwidth related congestion.
6.8. Respondent 8 6.8. Respondent 8
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
TDMoIP - RFC 5087 TDMoIP - RFC 5087
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 - In-Use ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 - In-Use
TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - In-Use TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - In-Use
skipping to change at page 26, line 17 skipping to change at page 25, line 34
Mode) Mode)
Used in Network: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) Used in Network: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW channel. PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW channel.
Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW VCCV using Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW VCCV using
BFD is another better option. Introperbility challences are with BFD is another better option. Interoperability challenges are with
Ethernet OAM mechanism. Ethernet OAM mechanism.
6.9. Respondent 9 6.9. Respondent 9
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 19385 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 19385
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 15757 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 15757
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
skipping to change at page 27, line 20 skipping to change at page 26, line 38
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.10. Respondent 10 6.10. Respondent 10
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 325 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 325
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply. please select all which apply.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type. used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
skipping to change at page 28, line 12 skipping to change at page 27, line 32
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.11. Respondent 11 6.11. Respondent 11
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
PPP - RFC 4618 HDLC - RFC 4618 PPP - RFC 4618 HDLC - RFC 4618
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 2000 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 2000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
PPP - RFC 4618 - 500 PPP - RFC 4618 - 500
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 200 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 200
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply. please select all which apply.
No Response No Response
skipping to change at page 29, line 4 skipping to change at page 28, line 23
No Response No Response
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type. used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw
Mode), PPP, HDLC Mode), PPP, HDLC
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode) Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.12. Respondent 12 6.12. Respondent 12
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50000 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50000
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply. please select all which apply.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type. used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
skipping to change at page 30, line 4 skipping to change at page 29, line 22
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type. used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
No Response No Response
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw
Mode) Mode)
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.13. Respondent 13 6.13. Respondent 13
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 3 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 3
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 10-20 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 10-20
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 3 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 3
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply. please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry
(Type 3) (Type 3)
skipping to change at page 31, line 29 skipping to change at page 30, line 47
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.14. Respondent 14 6.14. Respondent 14
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 150 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 150
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
skipping to change at page 32, line 31 skipping to change at page 31, line 49
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response No Response
6.15. Respondent 15 6.15. Respondent 15
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 20,000 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 20,000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000
skipping to change at page 34, line 15 skipping to change at page 33, line 32
result, the response from the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect result, the response from the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect
the status of the circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the the status of the circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the
operational status of our networks. An in-band method is highly operational status of our networks. An in-band method is highly
preferred, with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit preferred, with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit
Ping using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with Ping using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with
each of COMPANY vendors. each of COMPANY vendors.
6.16. Respondent 16 6.16. Respondent 16
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
skipping to change at page 34, line 51 skipping to change at page 34, line 20
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw
Mode) Mode)
Used in Network: No Resposne Used in Network: No Response
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
Using CV is not required at the moment Using CV is not required at the moment
6.17. Respondent 17 6.17. Respondent 17
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
SAToP - RFC 4553 SAToP - RFC 4553
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 CESoPSN - RFC 5086
TDMoIP - RFC 5087 TDMoIP - RFC 5087
3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires
in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note,
please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using
but cannot provide a number. but cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use
SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k
skipping to change at page 37, line 7 skipping to change at page 36, line 28
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or
any network/vendor details you wish to share. any network/vendor details you wish to share.
BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be
required for PW redundancy purpose) required for PW redundancy purpose)
7. Informative References 7. Informative References
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
[RFC4618] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level
Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618,
September 2006.
[RFC4717] Martini, L., Jayakumar, J., Bocci, M., El-Aawar, N.,
Brayley, J., and G. Koleyni, "Encapsulation Methods for
Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4717, December 2006.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
Channel for Pseudowires", December 2007. Channel for Pseudowires", December 2007.
Author's Address [RFC6307] Black, D., Dunbar, L., Roth, M., and R. Solomon,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel
Traffic over MPLS Networks", RFC 6307, April 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno (editor) Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno (editor)
Verizon Communications Inc Verizon Communications Inc
400 International Pkwy 400 International Pkwy
Richardson, TX 75081 Richardson, TX 75081
US US
Email: nick.delregno@verizon.com Email: nick.delregno@verizon.com
Andrew G. Malis (editor)
Verizon Communications Inc
60 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02451
US
Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
 End of changes. 100 change blocks. 
176 lines changed or deleted 207 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/