RE: (resend) Working group last call: PWE3 PPP assignmen t

Hi Vernon:

We had a problem in the MPLS space where existing implementations snooped
payload in do Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and simultaneously preserve flow
ordering. If it looked like an IP packet, use IP address information in
doing the path choice. Most implementations also use the label stack. Normal
mode of operation being to hash a path selection out of label stack and
payload information.

Net result of this was if the payload was not IP, (as in a psuedo wire) then
all mechanisms for distinguishing OAM flows were impacted. If you used a
reserved label, your OAM PDU would not have the same forwarding as the
payload flow of interest. If you used an IP packet, the forwarding would not
follow the payload flow of interest. 

So the PW group came up with the PW PID which would allow OAM PDUs to be
multiplexed with a PW flow without appearing as an IP packet to deployed
ECMP LSRs, and not requiring a reserved label. Hence where we are today...

hope this helps
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vernon Schryver [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 8:02 PM
> To: Allan, David [CAR:NS00:EXCH]; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Pppext] (resend) Working group last call: PWE3 
> PPP assignmen t
> 
> 
> > From: "David Allan" <[email protected]>
> > To: "'Vernon Schryver'" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected], 
> > [email protected]
> 
> > Sorry for the confusion, I upped the rev number of the 
> draft without 
> > checking that the appropriate text was still there (there are other 
> > drafts that use this). Section 5.4.3 of version 6 of the draft 
> > contains the appropriate text. I'll check where it has gone.
> 
> > FYI Lloyd Wood has an archived version... 
> > 
> http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/pub> lications/internet-draft
> > s/draf
> > t-ietf-pwe3-arch-06.txt
> 
> That version only raises more questions for me.
> 
> What is the purpose of the PPP DLL number in that header?
> What is demultiplexing using that PPP DLL number?  What are 
> the other values that might someday be in that field?
> 
> Except in the likely case that I'm completely confused about 
> which protocols are being tunneled in which other protocols, 
> a PPP DLL number seems like the wrong thing.
> 
> 
> Vernon Schryver    [email protected]
> 

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext