Re: RFC 4591 and RFC 4349: DLCI at egress LCCE

Carlos,

Thanks for your clarification.
>
> Think of the HDLCoPW as a cable, with "CEs" connected back-to-back on
> that port. Any configuration would need to use the same DLCIs, and any
> potential signaling would be CE to CE (needing to match DLCIs).
What CE to CE signalling would you use to match DLCIs?, Q.933?

Thanks

Javi
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Carlos.
>
>
> On 6/16/2010 7:29 AM, Javi wrote:
>> Carlos,
>>
>> Each CE decides the DLCI by itself (and dinamically for switched virtual
>> circuits, sopported by HDLCoPW).
>>
>> How may you know if both CEs use different DLCIs?. If you want to use
>> HDLCoPW, you would need to ensure that.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Javi
>>
>>
>> El 16/06/2010 5:45, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) escribió:
>>> Javi,
>>>
>>> If the DLCIs are different then you cannot use the HDLCoPW. Or a
>>> different way, for port mode DLCIs need to match (it is extending a
>>> port) and for different DLCIs you need FRoPW.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro.
>>>
>>> On Jun 15, 2010, at 7:29 PM, "Javi" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carlos,
>>>>
>>>> I agree, but I don't understand why. If a Frame Relay circuit is
>>>> transported over a L2TPv3 HDLCoPW, the egress LCCE builds a FR frame
>>>> with the same DLCI as the FR frame received by the ingress LCCE. If
>>>> DLCI has local significance, CE/ingress_LCCE may use a different DLCI
>>>> as CE/egress_LCCE. Why is not required here that the egress LCCE
>>>> re-writes the DLCI (although it's not visible to PW)?.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Javi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) escribió:
>>>>> Javi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the "port mode" does not have granularity/visibility into the
>>>>> DLCI level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Carlos.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Javi
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:46 PM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: [L2tpext] RFC 4591 and RFC 4349: DLCI at egress LCCE
>>>>>
>>>>> + Frame Relay traffic transported in a "virtual circuit-to-virtual
>>>>> circuit" mode by L2TPv3 FRPW: Due to local significance of the DLCI,
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> egress LCCE re-writes the DLCI.
>>>>>
>>>>>     RFC 4591 (L2TPv3 FRPW), clause 5
>>>>>     The Frame Relay frame is transported in its entirety, 
>>>>> including the
>>>>>
>>>>> DLCI ...  The egress LCCE re-writes the DLCI...
>>>>>
>>>>> + Frame Relay traffic transported in a "port" mode by L2TPv3 HDLCoPW
>>>>> (RFC 4349): It's not mentioned any DLCI modification at the egress
>>>>> LCCE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it not necessary here (similarly, DLCI significance is local)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Javi
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> L2tpext mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> L2tpext mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> L2tpext mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> L2tpext mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>>
> _______________________________________________
> L2tpext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext
>

_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext