doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 2299 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7079.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7079.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..97ee127
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7079.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2299 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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
+     A.9. Respondent 9 ...............................................29
+     A.10. Respondent 10 .............................................30
+     A.11. Respondent 11 .............................................31
+     A.12. Respondent 12 .............................................32
+     A.13. Respondent 13 .............................................33
+     A.14. Respondent 14 .............................................35
+     A.15. Respondent 15 .............................................36
+     A.16. Respondent 16 .............................................38
+     A.17. Respondent 17 .............................................39
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   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 Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior, and
+   to discriminate Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
+   from Pseudowire (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
+   documents to attempt to remedy the situation.
+
+   The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently
+   optional are:
+
+   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode [RFC4448]
+
+   o  Ethernet Raw Mode [RFC4448]
+
+   o  Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [RFC4618]
+
+   o  High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) [RFC4618]
+
+   o  Frame Relay Port Mode [RFC4618]
+
+   o  ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) [RFC4717]
+
+   Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085] defines
+   three Control Channel types for MPLS PWs: Type 1, using the PW
+   Control Word; Type 2, using the Router Alert (RA) Label; and Type 3,
+   using Time to Live (TTL) Expiration (e.g., MPLS PW Label with TTL ==
+   1).  While Type 2 (RA Label) is indicated as being "the preferred
+   mode of VCCV operation when the Control Word is not present", RFC
+   5085 does not indicate a mandatory Control Channel to ensure
+   interoperable implementations.  The closest it comes to mandating a
+   control channel is the requirement to support Type 1 (Control Word)
+   whenever the CW is present.  As such, the three options yield seven
+   implementation permutations (assuming you have to support at least
+   one Control Channel type to provide VCCV).  Due to these
+   permutations, interoperability challenges have been identified by
+   several VCCV users.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   In order to assess the best approach to address the observed
+   interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit
+   feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding
+   implementation.  This document presents the survey questionnaire and
+   the information returned by those in the user community who
+   participated.
+
+1.1.  PW/VCCV Survey Overview
+
+   Per the direction of the PWE3 working group chairs, a survey was
+   created to sample the nature of implementations of PWs, with specific
+   emphasis on Control Word usage, and VCCV, with emphasis on Control
+   Channel and Control Type usage.  The survey consisted of a series of
+   questions based on direction of the WG chairs and the survey opened
+   to the public on November 4, 2010.  The survey was conducted using
+   the SurveyMonkey tool, http://www.surveymonkey.com.  The survey ran
+   from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011 and was repeatedly
+   publicized on the PWE3 email list over that period.
+
+   The editors took precautions to ensure the validity of the sample and
+   the data.  Specifically, only responses with recognizable non-vendor
+   company-affiliated email addresses were accepted.  Unrecognizable or
+   personal email addresses would have been contacted to determine their
+   validity, but none were received.  Only one response was received
+   from each responding company.  If multiple responses from a company
+   had been received, they would have been contacted to determine
+   whether the responses were duplicative or additive.  This, however,
+   did not occur.
+
+1.2.  PW/VCCV Survey Form
+
+   The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following information
+   about user implementations (the lists of implementation choices were
+   taken verbatim from the survey):
+
+   -  Responding Organization.  No provisions were made for anonymous
+      responses, as all responses required a valid email address in
+      order to validate the survey response.  However, the results
+      herein are reported anonymously, except for an alphabetic list of
+      participating organizations in Section 2.2.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   -  Of the various encapsulations (and options therein) known at the
+      time, including the WG document, "Encapsulation Methods for
+      Transport of Fibre Channel" (now [RFC6307]), which were
+      implemented by the respondent.  These included:
+
+      o  Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+      o  Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+      o  Structure-Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet
+         (SAToP) - RFC 4553
+
+      o  PPP - RFC 4618
+
+      o  HDLC - RFC 4618
+
+      o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+      o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+      o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      o  ATM (AAL5 Service Data Unit (SDU) Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      o  Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP) - RFC 4842
+
+      o  Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network
+         (CESoPSN) - RFC 5086
+
+      o  Time Division Multiplexing over IP (TDMoIP) - RFC 5087
+
+      o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for
+         Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307)
+
+   -  Approximately how many PWs of each type were deployed.
+      Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy, could
+      just respond "In-Use" instead.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   -  For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate
+      which Control Channel [RFC5085] was in use.  (See Section 1 for a
+      discussion of these Control Channels.)  The options listed were:
+
+      o  Control Word (Type 1)
+
+      o  Router Alert Label (Type 2)
+
+      o  TTL Expiry (Type 3)
+
+   -  For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate
+      which Connectivity Verification types [RFC5085] were in use.  The
+      options were:
+
+      o  Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Ping
+
+      o  Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
+
+   -  For each encapsulation type for which the Control Word is
+      optional, the respondents could indicate the encapsulation(s) for
+      which Control Word was supported by the equipment vendor, and
+      whether the CW was also in use in the network.  The encapsulations
+      listed were:
+
+      o  Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
+
+      o  Ethernet (Raw Mode)
+
+      o  PPP
+
+      o  HDLC
+
+      o  Frame Relay (Port Mode)
+
+      o  ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
+
+   -  Finally, a free-form entry was provided for the respondent to
+      provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV
+      interoperability challenges, or the survey or any other network/
+      vendor details they wished to share.
+
+1.3.  PW/VCCV Survey Highlights
+
+   There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity
+   requirements in Section 1.1.  The responding companies are listed
+   below in Section 2.2.
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+2.  Survey Results
+
+2.1.  Summary of Results
+
+   Prior to this survey, there was considerable speculation about
+   whether the Control Word could always be mandated, with several
+   proposals to do so.  However, the survey showed that there was
+   considerable deployment of PWs that did not use the CW.  The
+   publication of this survey serves as a reminder of the extent of PWs
+   without the CW in use, and hence a reminder that the CW-less modes
+   cannot be deprecated in the near future.
+
+2.2.  Respondents
+
+   The following companies, listed here alphabetically as received in
+   the survey responses, participated in the PW/VCCV Implementation
+   Survey.  Responses were only solicited from non-vendors (users and
+   service providers), and no vendors responded (although if they had,
+   their response would not have been included).  The data provided has
+   been aggregated.  No specific company's response will be detailed
+   herein.
+
+   o  AboveNet
+
+   o  AMS-IX
+
+   o  Bright House Networks
+
+   o  Cox Communications
+
+   o  Deutsche Telekom AG
+
+   o  Easynet Global Services
+
+   o  France Telecom Orange
+
+   o  Internet Solution
+
+   o  MTN South Africa
+
+   o  OJSC MegaFon
+
+   o  Superonline
+
+   o  Telecom New Zealand
+
+   o  Telstra Corporation
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   o  Time Warner Cable
+
+   o  Tinet
+
+   o  Verizon
+
+   o  Wipro Technologies
+
+2.3.  Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented
+
+   The following request was made: "In your network in general, across
+   all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your
+   company has implemented."  Of all responses, the following list shows
+   the percentage of responses for each encapsulation:
+
+   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5%
+
+   o  Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4%
+
+   o  SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8%
+
+   o  PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8%
+
+   o  HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.9%
+
+   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 17.6%
+
+   o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 41.2%
+
+   o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%
+
+   o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6%
+
+   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%
+
+   o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0%
+
+   o  CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0%
+
+   o  CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8%
+
+   o  TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8%
+
+   o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport
+      of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307) = 5.9%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+2.4.  Number of Pseudowires Deployed
+
+   The following question was asked: "Approximately how many pseudowires
+   are deployed of each encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the
+   number of pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned
+   to do so."  The following list shows the number of pseudowires in use
+   for each encapsulation:
+
+   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861
+
+   o  Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231
+
+   o  SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050
+
+   o  PPP - RFC 4618 = 500
+
+   o  HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0
+
+   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002
+
+   o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959
+
+   o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000
+
+   o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103
+
+   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
+
+   o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
+
+   o  CEP - RFC 4842 = 0
+
+   o  CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600
+
+   o  TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000
+
+   o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport
+      of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307) = 0
+
+   In the above responses (on several occasions), the response was in
+   the form of "> XXXXX" where the response indicated a number greater
+   than the one provided.  Where applicable, the number itself was used
+   in the sums above.  For example, ">20K" and "20K+" yielded 20K.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   Additionally, the following encapsulations were listed as "In-Use"
+   with no quantity provided:
+
+   o  Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses
+
+   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response
+
+   o  TDMoIP: 1 Response
+
+2.5.  VCCV Control Channel in Use
+
+   The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV
+   Control Channel is used for each encapsulation type.  Understanding
+   that users may have different networks with varying implementations,
+   for your network in general, please select all which apply."  The
+   numbers below indicate the number of responses.  The responses were:
+
+   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 7
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3
+
+   o  Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 8
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4
+
+   o  SAToP - RFC 4553
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 1
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+   o  PPP - RFC 4618
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   o  HDLC - RFC 4618
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 1
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+   o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 3
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2
+
+   o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 1
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+   o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 1
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1
+
+   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+   o  CEP - RFC 4842
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+   o  CESoPSN - RFC 5086
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1
+
+   o  TDMoIP - RFC 5087
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+   o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport
+      of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307)
+
+      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0
+
+      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
+
+      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+2.6.  VCCV Connectivity Verification Types in Use
+
+   The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV
+   Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each
+   encapsulation type."  Note that Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
+   (BFD) was not one of the choices.  The responses were as follows:
+
+   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 5
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 11
+
+   o  Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 6
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 11
+
+   o  SAToP - RFC 4553
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 2
+
+   o  PPP - RFC 4618
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 0
+
+   o  HDLC - RFC 4618
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 0
+
+   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 1
+
+   o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 2
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 5
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 1
+
+   o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 3
+
+   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 1
+
+   o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 0
+
+   o  CEP - RFC 4842
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 0
+
+   o  CESoPSN - RFC 5086
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 1
+
+   o  TDMoIP - RFC 5087
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 1
+
+   o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport
+      of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307)
+
+      *  ICMP Ping = 0
+
+      *  LSP Ping = 0
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 15]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+2.7.  Control Word Support for Encapsulations for Which CW Is Optional
+
+   The following instructions were given: "Please indicate your
+   network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations
+   for which the Control Word is optional."  The responses were:
+
+   o  Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
+
+      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 13
+
+      *  Used in Network = 6
+
+   o  Ethernet (Raw Mode)
+
+      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 14
+
+      *  Used in Network = 7
+
+   o  PPP
+
+      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 5
+
+      *  Used in Network = 0
+
+   o  HDLC
+
+      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 4
+
+      *  Used in Network = 0
+
+   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode)
+
+      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 3
+
+      *  Used in Network = 1
+
+   o  ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
+
+      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 5
+
+      *  Used in Network = 1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 16]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+2.8.  Open-Ended Question
+
+   Space was provided for user feedback.  The following instructions
+   were given: "Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding
+   PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this
+   survey or any network/vendor details you wish to share."  Below are
+   the responses, made anonymous.  The responses are otherwise provided
+   here verbatim.
+
+   1.  BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be
+       required for PW redundancy purpose)
+
+   2.  Using CV is not required at the moment
+
+   3.  COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple
+       vendors.  COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV
+       Control Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor
+       platforms.  This will provide COMPANY with significant advantages
+       in reduced operational overheads when handling cross-domain
+       faults.  Having a uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY
+       multi-vendor network leads to:
+
+       o  Reduced operational cost and complexity
+
+       o  Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible VCCV
+          implementations.
+
+       o  Increased end-end service availability when handing faults.
+
+       In addition, currently some of COMPANY deployed VCCV traffic
+       flows (on some vendor platforms) are not guaranteed to follow
+       those of the customer's application traffic (a key operational
+       requirement).  As a result, the response from the circuit ping
+       cannot faithfully reflect the status of the circuit.  This leads
+       to ambiguity regarding the operational status of our networks.
+       An in-band method is highly preferred, with COMPANY having a
+       clear preference for VCCV Circuit Ping using PWE Control Word.
+       This preference is being pursued with each of COMPANY vendors.
+
+   4.  PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW
+       channel.  Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel.  PW
+       VCCV using BFD is another better option.  Interoperability
+       challenges are with Ethernet OAM mechanism.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 17]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   5.  We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS
+       ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over
+       IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson
+       Media Gateway etc.  This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing
+       configuration on it to have best performance.  QoS marking is
+       done for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS
+       encapsulated ATM packets.  EoMPLS: This service offered for
+       transporting 2G/3G traffic from network such as Node-B to RNC's
+       over IP/MPLS backbone core network.  QoS marking is done for
+       getting guaranteed bandwidth treatment in the core for these MPLS
+       encapsulated ATM packets.  In addition to basic L2VPN service
+       configuration, these traffic are routed via MPLS TE tunnels with
+       dedicated path and bandwidth defined to avoid bandwidth related
+       congestion.
+
+   6.  EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV
+       control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits.
+       How can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of
+       PW without VCCV in such cases?
+
+   7.  I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience
+       interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space
+       who are only implementing VCCV via control word.  Vendors who
+       have tailed their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul
+       space and mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space.
+       That's all I've got.
+
+3.  Security Considerations
+
+   As this document is an informational report of the PW/VCCV User
+   Implementation Survey results, no protocol security considerations
+   are introduced.
+
+4.  Acknowledgements
+
+   We would like to thank the chairs of the PWE3 working group for their
+   guidance and review of the survey questions.  We would also like to
+   sincerely thank those listed in Section 2.2. who took the time and
+   effort to participate.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 18]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+5.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC4448]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
+              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
+              Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
+
+   [RFC4618]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis,
+              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level
+              Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618,
+              September 2006.
+
+   [RFC4717]  Martini, L., Jayakumar, J., Bocci, M., El-Aawar, N.,
+              Brayley, J., and G. Koleyni, "Encapsulation Methods for
+              Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS
+              Networks", RFC 4717, December 2006.
+
+   [RFC5085]  Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
+              Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
+              Channel for Pseudowires", December 2007.
+
+   [RFC6307]  Black, D., Dunbar, L., Roth, M., and R. Solomon,
+              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel
+              Traffic over MPLS Networks", RFC 6307, April 2012.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 19]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+Appendix A.  Survey Responses
+
+   The detailed responses are included in this appendix.  The respondent
+   contact info has been removed.
+
+A.1.  Respondent 1
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 423
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 20]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+A.2.  Respondent 2
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       SAToP - RFC 4553
+
+       CESoPSN - RFC 5086
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 5000
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
+
+       SAToP - RFC 4553 - 50
+
+       CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - 1600
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router
+       Alert Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
+       Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
+
+       CESoPSN - RFC 5086: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+       SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 21]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+       CESoPSN - RFC 5086: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: No Response
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience
+       interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space
+       who are only implementing VCCV via control word.  Vendors who
+       have tailed their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul
+       space and mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space.
+       That's all I've got.
+
+A.3.  Respondent 3
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 800
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50
+
+       Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 22]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       No Response
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       No Response
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: No Response
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+A.4.  Respondent 4
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 200
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 23]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       No Response
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: No Response
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV
+       control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits.
+       How can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of
+       PW without VCCV in such cases?
+
+A.5.  Respondent 5
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       PPP - RFC 4618
+
+       Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+       Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport
+       of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307)
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 24]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 4000
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router
+       Alert Label (Type 2)
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
+       Label (Type 2)
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+A.6.  Respondent 6
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 25]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 500
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 26]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+A.7.  Respondent 7
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 20
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 100
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       No Response
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
+       Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: No Response
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 27]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+       We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS
+       ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over
+       IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson
+       Media Gateway etc.  This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing
+       configuration on it to have best performance.  QoS marking is
+       done for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS
+       encapsulated ATM packets.  EoMPLS: This service offered for
+       transporting 2G/3G traffic from network such as Node-B to RNC's
+       over IP/MPLS backbone core network.  QoS marking is done for
+       getting guaranteed bandwidth treatment in the core for these MPLS
+       encapsulated ATM packets.  In addition to basic L2VPN service
+       configuration, these traffic are routed via MPLS TE tunnels with
+       dedicated path and bandwidth defined to avoid bandwidth related
+       congestion.
+
+A.8.  Respondent 8
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+       TDMoIP - RFC 5087
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use
+
+       ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 - In-Use
+
+       TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - In-Use
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+       ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: Router Alert Label (Type 2)
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 28]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+       ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
+
+       TDMoIP - RFC 5087: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1
+       Cell Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW
+       channel.  Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel.  PW
+       VCCV using BFD is another better option.  Interoperability
+       challenges are with Ethernet OAM mechanism.
+
+A.9.  Respondent 9
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 19385
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 15757
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 29]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
+       Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: No Response
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+A.10.  Respondent 10
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 325
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 30]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response
+
+       Used in Network: No Response
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+A.11.  Respondent 11
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       PPP - RFC 4618 HDLC - RFC 4618
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 2000
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
+
+       PPP - RFC 4618 - 500
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 200
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 31]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       No Response
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC
+
+       Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+A.12.  Respondent 12
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50000
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 32]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
+       Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       No Response
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+A.13.  Respondent 13
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 3
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 10-20
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 33]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 3
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL
+       Expiry (Type 3)
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry
+       (Type 3)
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1), TTL
+       Expiry (Type 3)
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
+       Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode),
+       Frame Relay (Port Mode)
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 34]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+A.14.  Respondent 14
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 150
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router
+       Alert Label (Type 2)
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
+       Label (Type 2)
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 35]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       No Response
+
+A.15.  Respondent 15
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 20,000
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 20,000
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 36]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response
+
+       Used in Network: No Response
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple
+       vendors.  COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV
+       Control Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor
+       platforms.  This will provide COMPANY with significant advantages
+       in reduced operational overheads when handling cross-domain
+       faults.  Having a uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY
+       multi-vendor network leads to:
+
+       o   Reduced operational cost and complexity
+
+       o   Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible VCCV
+           implementations.
+
+       o   Increased end-end service availability when handing faults.
+
+       In addition, currently some of COMPANY deployed VCCV traffic
+       flows (on some vendor platforms) are not guaranteed to follow
+       those of the customer's application traffic (a key operational
+       requirement).  As a result, the response from the circuit ping
+       cannot faithfully reflect the status of the circuit.  This leads
+       to ambiguity regarding the operational status of our networks.
+       An in-band method is highly preferred, with COMPANY having a
+       clear preference for VCCV Circuit Ping using PWE Control Word.
+       This preference is being pursued with each of COMPANY vendors.
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 37]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+A.16.  Respondent 16
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       No Response
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
+       (Raw Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: No Response
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 38]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+       Using CV is not required at the moment
+
+A.17.  Respondent 17
+
+   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
+       which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
+
+       SAToP - RFC 4553
+
+       Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
+
+       ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
+
+       CESoPSN - RFC 5086
+
+       TDMoIP - RFC 5087
+
+   3.  Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each
+       encapsulation type.  Note, this should be the number of
+       pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do
+       so. ***Note, please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types
+       which you are using but cannot provide a number.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k
+
+       Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use
+
+       SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k
+
+       Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k
+
+       ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k
+
+       CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - >20k
+
+       TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - >20k
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 39]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+   4.  Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
+       encapsulation type.  Understanding that users may have different
+       networks with varying implementations, for your network in
+       general, please select all which apply.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+       SAToP - RFC 4553: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+       Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+       ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1)
+
+   5.  Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
+       used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
+
+       Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
+
+       SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping
+
+       Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
+
+       Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
+
+       ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
+
+       ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
+
+   6.  Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
+       Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
+
+       Supported by Network/Equipment: ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
+
+       Used in Network: No Response
+
+   7.  Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
+       VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
+       or any network/vendor details you wish to share.
+
+       BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be
+       required for PW redundancy purpose)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 40]
+
+RFC 7079          PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results    November 2013
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno (editor)
+   Verizon Communications, Inc.
+   400 International Pkwy
+   Richardson, TX  75081
+   US
+
+   EMail: nick.delregno@verizon.com
+
+
+   Andrew G. Malis (editor)
+   Consultant
+
+   EMail: agmalis@gmail.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Del Regno & Malis             Informational                    [Page 41]
+