Skip to main content

The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Expired & archived
Author Nick Del Regno
Last updated 2012-04-18 (Latest revision 2011-03-29)
Replaced by draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Stream WG state Adopted by a WG
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:


Most Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate the use of the Control Word (CW) in order to better emulate the services for which the encapsulations have been defined. However, some encapulations treat the Control Word as optional. As a result, implementations of the CW, for encapsulations for which it is optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment model and service provider network. Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) types and multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types. This flexibility has led to reports of interoperability issues within deployed networks and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the situation. This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine implementation trends. The survey and results is presented herein.


Nick Del Regno

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)