The Pseudowire (PW) and Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, pwe3 mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, pwe3 chair <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-03.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results' (draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-03.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results/
Technical Summary The IETF 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 PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine implementation trends and the possibility of always mandating the Control Word. Working Group Summary RFC5085 defines 3 VCCV channel types. These are essentially the mechanisms for transport of the PW associated channel that is used to carry e.g. PW OAM messages. In addition, RFC6423 adds a 4th mechanism which uses the GAL. There is currently no clear definition of which modes are mandatory and which modes are optional to implement. This has caused concerns by some participants in the operator community that the proliferation of modes causes interoperability issues between vendors. As a first step to rationalising the number of modes, the WG conducted a survey to try to quantify which modes are in use today and so determine which ones could be either deprecated, or made optional in a possible future update to RFC5085. This draft contains the results of that survey. Since the survey contains useful information pertaining to the current state of PW deployments, there was consensus to record the results of the survey in an Informational RFC. Note that the draft spent an extended amount of time in AD review while additional editorial help was sought to address the comments from the AD. During this period the draft went dormant. Additional editorial help was eventually found, and the draft progressed as it was felt that the survey results contained therein were still relevant. The WG has also been using these results as a basis for on-going work, and it was felt that a permanent record of the results is desirable. Note that the name of the document that was originally last called by the WG was draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results, but this was updated to draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results as a result of a comment from the WG. Document Quality The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review. Personnel The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci. The responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant.