< draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-01.txt   draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt >
Network Working Group N. Del Regno, Ed. Network Working Group N. Del Regno, Ed.
Internet-Draft A. Malis, Ed. Internet-Draft A. Malis, Ed.
Intended status: Informational Verizon Communications Inc Intended status: Informational Verizon Communications Inc
Expires: December 29, 2013 June 27, 2013 Expires: February 22, 2014 August 21, 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-01 draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02
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) to carry information essential to the use of the Control Word (CW) to carry information essential to
the emulation, to inhibit ECMP behavior, and to discriminate OAM from the emulation, to inhibit Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior, and
PW packets. However, some encapsulations treat the Control Word as to discriminate Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
optional. As a result, implementations of the CW, for encapsulations from Pseudowire (PW) packets. However, some encapsulations treat the
for which it is optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment Control Word as optional. As a result, implementations of the CW,
model and service provider network. Similarly, Virtual Circuit for encapsulations for which it is optional, vary by equipment
Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) manufacturer, equipment model and service provider network.
types and multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types. This Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports
flexibility has led to reports of interoperability issues within three Control Channel (CC) types and multiple Connectivity
deployed networks and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the Verification (CV) Types. This flexibility has led to reports of
situation. This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted interoperability issues within deployed networks and associated
to determine implementation trends. The survey and results is drafts to attempt to remedy the situation. This survey of the PW/
presented herein. VCCV user community was conducted 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 December 29, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 22, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use . . . . . . . 11 2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use . . . . . . . 11
2.6. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is 2.6. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is
Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.7. Open Ended Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.7. Open Ended Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Respondent 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.1. Respondent 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Respondent 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.2. Respondent 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.3. Respondent 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.3. Respondent 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.8. Respondent 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.9. Respondent 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.9. Respondent 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.10. Respondent 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.10. Respondent 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.11. Respondent 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.11. Respondent 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.12. Respondent 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.12. Respondent 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.13. Respondent 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.13. Respondent 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
skipping to change at page 3, line 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 12
6.15. Respondent 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.15. Respondent 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.16. Respondent 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.16. Respondent 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.17. Respondent 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.17. Respondent 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF PWE3 Working Group has defined many encapsulations of The IETF PWE3 Working Group has defined many encapsulations of
various layer 1 and layer 2 service-specific PDUs and circuit data. various layer 1 and layer 2 service-specific PDUs and circuit data.
In most of these encapsulations, use of the PW Control Word is In most of these encapsulations, use of the Pseudowire (PW) Control
required. However, there are several encapsulations for which the Word is required. However, there are several encapsulations for
Control Word is optional, and this optionality has been seen in which the Control Word is optional, and this optionality has been
practice to possibly introduce interoperability concerns between seen in practice to possibly introduce interoperability concerns
multiple implementations of those encapsulations. between multiple implementations of those encapsulations.
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 [RFC4448] o Ethernet Tagged Mode [RFC4448]
o Ethernet Raw Mode [RFC4448] o Ethernet Raw Mode [RFC4448]
o PPP [RFC4618] o PPP [RFC4618]
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 25
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 survey was survey opened to the public on November 4, 2010. The survey was
conducted using the SurveyMonkey tool, http://www.surveymonkey.com . conducted using the SurveyMonkey tool, http://www.surveymonkey.com .
The survey ran from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011 and was The survey ran from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011 and was
repeatedly publicized on the pwe3 email list over that period. 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 (the lists of implementation choices were about user implementations (the lists of implementation choices were
taken verbatim from the survey): taken verbatim from the survey):
- Responding Organization. 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, now [RFC6307]), which time, including the WG draft for Fiber Channel, draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-
were implemented by the respondent. These included: encap (now [RFC6307]), which 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 4, line 46 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
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
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 [RFC6307]
- 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 [RFC5085] was in use (see Section 1 for a
discussion of these Control Channels). 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 [RFC5085] were in use. The
options were:
o ICMP Ping o Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Ping
o LSP Ping o Label Switched Path (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 encapsulation for is optional, the respondents could indicated the encapsulation for
which Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether it which Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether it
was in use in the network. The encapsulations 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)
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 seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity
companies are listed below in Section 2.1. requirements in Section 3. The responding companies are listed below
in Section 2.1.
2. Survey Results 2. Survey Results
2.1. Respondents 2.1. Respondents
The following companies, listed here alphabetically, participated in The following companies, listed here alphabetically as received in
the PW/VCCV Implementation Survey. Responses were only solicited the survey responses, participated in the PW/VCCV Implementation
from non-vendors (users and service providers), and no vendors Survey. Responses were only solicited from non-vendors (users and
responded (although if they had, their response would not have been service providers), and no vendors responded (although if they had,
included). The data provided has been aggregated. No specific their response would not have been included). The data provided has
company's response will be detailed herein. been aggregated. No specific company's response will be detailed
herein.
o AboveNet o AboveNet
o AMS-IX o AMS-IX
o Bright House Networks o Bright House Networks
o Cox Communications o Cox Communications
o Deutsche Telekom AG o Deutsche Telekom AG
skipping to change at page 7, line 42 skipping to change at page 8, line 4
o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6% o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6%
o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9% o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%
o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0% o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0%
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 [RFC6307] =
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 pseudowires 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
skipping to change at page 8, line 41 skipping to change at page 8, line 45
o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0 o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0
o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600
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 [RFC6307] = 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 encapsulations were listed as "In-Use" Additionally, the following encapsulations were listed as "In-Use"
with no quantity provided: with no quantity provided:
o Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses o Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses
skipping to change at page 11, line 32 skipping to change at page 11, line 37
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1
o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307]
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use 2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use
The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV
skipping to change at page 13, line 35 skipping to change at page 13, line 38
* ICMP Ping = 0 * ICMP Ping = 0
* LSP Ping = 1 * LSP Ping = 1
o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087
* 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 [RFC6307]
* ICMP Ping = 0 * ICMP Ping = 0
* LSP Ping = 0 * LSP Ping = 0
2.6. Control Word Support for Encapsulations 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:
skipping to change at page 21, line 25 skipping to change at page 21, line 28
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 [RFC6307]
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
 End of changes. 26 change blocks. 
46 lines changed or deleted 51 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/