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

Ignacio,

Thanks for the diagram.

The doubt is about FRoPW:

            C1                            C2
   [ FR A ]----[ LCCE 1 ]------[ LCCE 2 ]----[ FR B ]

               <------ L2TP FRoPW ---->

           <------------- FR traffic ------->

 From the CE point of view, FR link is finished by remote system?:

   [ FR A ]----..........................----[ FR B ]

           <------------- FR traffic ------->

or by its LCCE?:

            C1                            C2
   [ FR A ]----[ LCCE 1 ]------[ LCCE 2 ]----[ FR B ]

               <------ L2TP FRoPW ---->

           <---->                       <---->
         FR traffic                   FR traffic


Thanks,

Javi

Ignacio Goyret escribió:
> [due to an error on my part, this response didn't go to the list -
>  please, accept my apologies if you get a duplicate]
>
> Javi wrote:
>> 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
>
> Javi,
> May be a diagram may help clarify the idea:
>
>             C1                            C2
>    [ FR A ]----[ LCCE 1 ]------[ LCCE 2 ]----[ FR B ]
>
>                <------ L2TP HDLCoPW ---->
>
>            <------------- FR traffic ------->
>
>
> In other words, the above set of devices will behave exactly
> the same (bit for bit on cables C1 and C2) as if C1 and C2
> were the same physical cable, eg:
>
>    [ FR A ]----..........................----[ FR B ]
>
>            <------------- FR traffic ------->
>
> where the series of dots above represents the transparent PW
> between LCCE 1 and LCCE 2.
>
> Hope this makes sense,
> -Ignacio
>
>