Section 3.4.1 of the MPLS TP Framework I-D - Nee RE: An error in RFC 4446"IANA Allocations for PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"

Lucy,

I'm sorry but I don't understand your conclusion.  I think your
penultimate sentence is correct but I don't understand its relevance,
and your last sentence appears to have precipitated a layer inversion.

Section 3.4.1 deals with client network layer payloads, where 'network
layer' is defined in RFC 3031 to be "synonymous with layer 3".

Thanks,

John  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yong Lucy [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:44 PM
> To: Drake, John E; 'Jiang Yuan-long'; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446"IANA Allocations for 
> PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> One clarification on this:
> 
> When client network layer over MPLS-TP LSP directly, the 
> method implies that client network layer can use this MPLS-TP 
> LSP as a client network link because the LSP is a 
> bidirectional point to point connection. When client traffic 
> over a PW, the PW does not guarantee link characteristics.
> Therefore, the method only applies to client non-network layer.
> 
> Is my understanding correct? 
> 
> Regards,
> Lucy
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> On Behalf 
> > Of Drake, John E
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 8:09 AM
> > To: Jiang Yuan-long; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for 
> > PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > 
> > Yuanlong Jiang,
> > 
> > Please see section 3.4.1 of the MPLS TP Framework I-D:
> > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-02.txt
> > 
> > It describes how client network layer payloads (e.g., IP 
> and MPLS) are 
> > carried directly, i.e., without a pseudo-wire, over an MPLS 
> TP server 
> > network.
> > 
> > Client non-network layer payloads still use pseudo-wires.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jiang Yuan-long [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:21 PM
> > > To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for 
> > > PseudowireEdge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > >
> > > Neil,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply.
> > > As Himanshu said in the last email, 0x000B is actually 
> the PW type 
> > > for IP, rather than L2TP PW type for IP. So I believe it is also 
> > > feasible for MPLS-TP.
> > >
> > > I agree with you that there is some difficulty for MPLS 
> label stack 
> > > to operate in the same manner as client/server layering 
> model, but 
> > > an adaptation layer such as PW functions now is indispensable.
> > >
> > >  Best Regards
> > > Yuanlong Jiang
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 	----- Original Message -----
> > > 	From: [email protected]
> > > 	To: [email protected] ; [email protected]
> > > 	Cc: [email protected]
> > > 	Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:16 AM
> > > 	Subject: RE: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA Allocations for 
> > > Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > >
> > > 	Hi Yuanlong Jiang,
> > >
> > > 	Where you said below:
> > > 	"I also wonder whether we should define a PW type for 
> IP payload so 
> > > that everything on PW is possible"
> > >
> > > 	This is precisely what a key consequence of MPLS-TP is, 
> ie in the 
> > > LDP spin of MPLS we had to define PWs (one reason being that LDP 
> > > requires that IP traffic units can run native in the DP with MPLS 
> > > traffic units), but given we can't have IP in the MPLS-TP 
> DP and we 
> > > can't have LDP mp2p merging constructs in MPLS-TP anyway 
> (the latter 
> > > point is all about resource management determinism) then the 
> > > original driver for PWs is gone.....just a fact.  So now 
> everything 
> > > is a PW and nothing is a PW....that is, we just have 
> clients (any) 
> > > of MPLS-TP.
> > >
> > > 	We still have a tricky issue with the S bit that is not fully 
> > > understood IMO yet (S bit => sublayering, as opposed to true 
> > > client/server layering), which is also related to the important 
> > > topic of being able to do MPLSoverMPLS as a proper client/server 
> > > relationship.
> > >
> > > 	So what you point out below will be the case in MPLS-TP anyway 
> > > (though I'm not sure everyone is comfortable with the 
> acceptance of 
> > > this fact yet)
> > >
> > > 	regards, Neil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > 		From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jiang Yuan-long
> > > 		Sent: 18 August 2009 14:01
> > > 		To: [email protected]
> > > 		Cc: [email protected]
> > > 		Subject: [PWE3] An error in RFC 4446 "IANA 
> Allocations for 
> > > Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)"
> > >
> > >
> > > 		Hi, all:
> > >
> > > 		I came accross an error in RFC 4446 "IANA 
> Allocations for 
> > > Pseudowire
> > > 		Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)".
> > >
> > > 		In Sec 3.2, it says:
> > > 		"   0x000B  IP Layer2 Transport
> > >              [RFC3032]"
> > >
> > > 		it should be:
> > > 		   0x000B  IP Layer2 Transport
> > >       [draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-ip]
> > >
> > > 		The same problem also exists in web page version 
> > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters
> > > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters> .
> > >
> > > 		I wonder how about the status of this expired 
> WG draft, will any 
> > > more work
> > > 		continue on this document or just expired as it is?
> > > 		I also wonder whether we should define a PW 
> type for IP payload so 
> > > that
> > > 		everything on PW is possible.
> > > 		Any comments?
> > >
> > > 		   Thanks,
> > > 		Yuanlong Jiang
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
> 
>