The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7079.
Expired & archived
|Author||Nick Del Regno|
|Last updated||2012-12-15 (Latest revision 2012-04-17)|
|RFC stream||Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)|
GENART Last Call review (of -02) by Brian Carpenter Almost ready
|Additional resources||Mailing list discussion|
|Stream||WG state||Submitted to IESG for Publication|
|Document shepherd||Matthew Bocci|
|IESG||IESG state||Expired (IESG: Dead)|
|Responsible AD||Stewart Bryant|
|Send notices email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org|
This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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.
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)