Re: Pseudo-wires: uni-directional o bi-directional?

Ignacio,

RFC 3931 (L2TPv3), clause 5.4.4
Note that a Session ID value is *unidirectional*.  Because each LCCE
chooses its Session ID independent of its peer LCCE, the value
does not have to match *in each direction* for a given session.

I understand each session is unidirectional, and two sessions (one for 
each direction) are needed for bidirectional traffic.

A Session ID is a possible PW label. So, a L2TPv3 session is really a 
L2TPv3 PW.

Thanks,

Javi


Ignacio Goyret escribió:
> [cross-posting since you posted the same question in PWE3 as well]
>
> Javi wrote:
>> A pseudo-wire is: uni-directional o bi-directional?
>>
>> I thought that it was necessary to set up two symmetrical TDMoMPLS 
>> pseudo-wires (one for each direction) for emulating a bidirectional 
>> TDM circuit o HDLC/FR link.
>
> I'm not an MPLS expert (wrong WG) so I can't answer that part of the
> question.
>
> But I can tell you that all L2TP sessions are always capable of
> bidirectional traffic, regardless of the type of data they may carry.
> This is an intrinsic feature of L2TP.
>
> -Ignacio
>
>

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