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

Hi Carlos and Luca,

Couple of more from my side...rest looks fine to me.


=> Section 8.5 related to MTU:
There may be scenarios where MTU values of MS-PW may differ and this may
result in pkt fragmentation on S-PE. Can this be avoided ? at least in
case of 8.4 viz. Dynamic LDP/MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs.  

=> pertaining is misspelled as pertining 
"A more detailed discussion of the requirements pertining to MS-PWs can
be found in [RFC5254]." 


 
Regards,
Prashant Jhingran

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Aldrin (aldrin) 
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
Cc: Luca Martini (lmartini); PWE3 WG (E-mail); [email protected];
Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra); Neil McGill (nmcgill)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] 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
>>