The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results
draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (pwe3 WG)
Last updated 2013-08-20 (latest revision 2013-06-27)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Other - see Comment Log
Document shepherd Matthew Bocci
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2013-07-05)
IESG IESG state AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Telechat date
Responsible AD Stewart Bryant
IESG note The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com).
Send notices to pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results@tools.ietf.org
Network Working Group                                  N. Del Regno, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             A. Malis, Ed.
Intended status: Informational                Verizon Communications Inc
Expires: December 29, 2013                                 June 27, 2013

 The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
                     Implementation Survey Results
              draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-01

Abstract

   Most pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate
   the use of the Control Word (CW) to carry information essential to
   the emulation, to inhibit ECMP behavior, and to discriminate OAM from
   PW packets.  However, some encapsulations 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.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Del Regno & Malis       Expires December 29, 2013               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results        June 2013

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  PW/VCCV Survey Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  PW/VCCV Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  PW/VCCV Survey Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  Survey Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  Number of Pseudowires Deployed  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  VCCV Control Channel In Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.5.  VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use . . . . . . .  11
     2.6.  Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is
           Optional  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.7.  Open Ended Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Appendix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.1.  Respondent 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.2.  Respondent 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.3.  Respondent 3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.4.  Respondent 4  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     6.5.  Respondent 5  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     6.6.  Respondent 6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     6.7.  Respondent 7  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.8.  Respondent 8  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.9.  Respondent 9  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
Show full document text