The Pseudowire (PW) and Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results
RFC 7079

 
Document Type RFC - Informational (November 2013; No errata)
Last updated 2013-11-27
Stream IETF
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Consensus Unknown
Document shepherd Matthew Bocci
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2013-07-05)
IESG IESG state RFC 7079 (Informational)
Telechat date
Responsible AD Stewart Bryant
IESG note The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com).
Send notices to pwe3-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results@ietf.org
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state No IC

Email authors IPR References Referenced by Nits Search lists

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                 N. Del Regno, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7079                  Verizon Communications, Inc.
Category: Informational                                    A. Malis, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               Consultant
                                                           November 2013

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

Abstract

   The IETF Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) working group has
   defined many encapsulations of various layer 1 and layer 2 service-
   specific PDUs and circuit data.  In most of these encapsulations, use
   of the Pseudowire (PW) Control Word is required.  However, there are
   several encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional, and
   this optionality has been seen in practice to possibly introduce
   interoperability concerns between multiple implementations of those
   encapsulations.  This survey of the Pseudowire / Virtual Circuit
   Connectivity Verification (VCCV) user community was conducted to
   determine implementation trends and the possibility of always
   mandating the Control Word.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7079.

Del Regno & Malis             Informational                     [Page 1]
RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013

Copyright Notice

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

   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.

Del Regno & Malis             Informational                     [Page 2]
RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................4
      1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview ....................................5
      1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form ........................................5
      1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights ..................................7
   2. Survey Results ..................................................8
      2.1. Summary of Results .........................................8
      2.2. Respondents ................................................8
      2.3. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented ......................9
      2.4. Number of Pseudowires Deployed ............................10
      2.5. VCCV Control Channel in Use ...............................11
      2.6. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types in Use ...............14
      2.7. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for Which
           CW Is Optional ............................................16
      2.8. Open-Ended Question .......................................17
   3. Security Considerations ........................................18
   4. Acknowledgements ...............................................18
   5. Informative References .........................................19
   Appendix A. Survey Responses ......................................20
     A.1. Respondent 1 ...............................................20
     A.2. Respondent 2 ...............................................21
     A.3. Respondent 3 ...............................................22
     A.4. Respondent 4 ...............................................23
     A.5. Respondent 5 ...............................................24
     A.6. Respondent 6 ...............................................25
     A.7. Respondent 7 ...............................................27
     A.8. Respondent 8 ...............................................28
Show full document text