diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7079.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc7079.txt | 2299 |
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] + |