Re: L2TPEXT review of L2TPv3 extensions in draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-15

Carlos and Luca,

Here are few comments specific to L2TPv3 extensions.

cheers
-sam


1. Sec 8.4.1 - Is 'MH-PW' a  typo? Should it be MS-PW?

2. Sec 8.7.1 - i - It says the upper nibble is always zero. Is it true  
even in the case of VCCV? Is it saying that, there can never be a CW  
with non-zero? OR will there be no mapping if it is non-zero? Can this  
be clarified?

3. Sec 9.3: In the case of MS-PW of this topology

TPE1------------------------SPE1-----------------------TPE2
          (LDP)                                   (L2TPv3)

Does SPE1 advertises cc type 1 at all?
If not, is it the same case when both the segments are statically  
signaled and statically stitched?
If yes, when vccv LSP ping packet sent with CW and ttl = 255, does it  
gets switched onto L2TPv3 segment?

4. The OAM section is entirely for the MS-PW toplogy of MPLS signaled  
PW segments. Shouldn't there be a section which clarifies the OAM  
behavior in the case of MS-PW with MPLS and L2TPv3 signaled segments  
stitched together?

5. In Sec 8.6, the SP-TLV is exchanged/translated between MPLS  
signaled and L2TPv3 signaled segments. If this is true, have questions  
in the following topology

TPE1------------------------SPE1-----------------------TPE2
          (LDP)                                   (L2TPv3)

a) Will the Segment-TLV list on TPE1 contain info about L2TPv3 segment  
as well?
b) If the LSP ping packet is sent as type3 VCCV and no CW, how does  
SPE1 punt the packet without forwarding the packet onto non-MPLS  
signaled segment?

On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Carlos Pignataro wrote:

> We received three responses volunteering to review the document for
> L2TPext: Prashant Jhingran, Sam Aldrin, and Neil McGill in Cc.
>
> The current version is at
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-15>. Please
> send your comments and Acks/Nacks to [email protected], Cc to [email protected] 
> .
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Carlos, on behalf of L2TPext.
>
> On 6/3/2010 6:14 PM, Luca Martini wrote:
>> L2TPEXT WG,
>> he IESG as asked that you review the proposed L2TPv3 extensions
>> documented in draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-14.
>>
>> These extensions are documented in section 8.
>>
>> Please advise us if you have any objections to the proposed  
>> additions.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Luca Martini
>> on behalf of pwe3 WG.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>