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

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (pwe3 WG)
Last updated 2012-12-15 (latest revision 2012-04-17)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Expired & archived
plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Other - see Comment Log
Document shepherd Matthew Bocci
IESG IESG state Expired (IESG: Dead)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Stewart Bryant
IESG note The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (
Send notices to,

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at


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 Regno (

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