One document matched: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-03.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-03"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results">The Pseudowire (PW)
& Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation
Survey Results</title>
<author fullname="Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno" initials="N."
role="editor" surname="Del Regno">
<organization>Verizon Communications Inc</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>400 International Pkwy</street>
<city>Richardson</city>
<region>TX</region>
<code>75081</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<email>nick.delregno@verizon.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Andrew G. Malis" initials="A. G."
role="editor" surname="Malis">
<organization>Verizon Communications Inc</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>60 Sylvan Road</street>
<city>Waltham</city>
<region>MA</region>
<code>02451</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<email>andrew.g.malis@verizon.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="3" month="October" year="2013" />
<abstract>
<t>The IETF PWE3 Working Group has defined many encapsulations of various layer 1 and layer 2 service-specific PDUs and circuit data. In most of these encapsulations, use of the Pseudowire (PW) Control Word is required. However, there are several encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional, and this optionality has been seen in practice to possibly introduce interoperability concerns between multiple implementations of those encapsulations. This survey of the PW/VCCV user
community was conducted to determine implementation trends and the possibility of always mandating the Control Word.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>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 drafts
to attempt to remedy the situation.</t>
<t>The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently
optional are: <list style="symbols">
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode <xref target="RFC4448"></xref></t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode <xref target="RFC4448"></xref></t>
<t>PPP <xref target="RFC4618"></xref></t>
<t>HDLC <xref target="RFC4618"></xref></t>
<t>Frame Relay Port Mode <xref target="RFC4618"></xref></t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) <xref target="RFC4717"></xref></t>
</list>
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) <xref target="RFC5085"></xref> defines three Control Channel
types for MPLS PW's: Type 1, using the pseudowire Control Word, Type 2,
using the Router Alert (RA) Label, and Type 3, using 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 control word 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.</t>
<t>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 the user community who participated.</t>
<section title="PW/VCCV Survey Overview">
<t>Per the direction of the PWE3 Working Group chairs, a survey was
created to sample the nature of implementations of pseudowires, 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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="PW/VCCV Survey Form">
<t>The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following
information about user implementations (the lists of implementation choices were taken verbatim from the survey):</t>
<t>- 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.</t>
<t>- Of the various encapsulations (and options therein) known at the
time, including the WG draft for Fiber Channel, draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap (now <xref target="RFC6307"></xref>), which were
implemented by the respondent. These included:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553</t>
<t>PPP - RFC 4618</t>
<t>HDLC - RFC 4618</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717</t>
<t>CEP - RFC 4842</t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086</t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087</t>
<t>Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap <xref target="RFC6307"></xref></t>
</list>- Approximately how many pseudowires of each type were
deployed. Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy,
could just respond "In-Use" instead.</t>
<t>- For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could
indicated which Control Channel <xref target="RFC5085"></xref> was in use (see Section 1 for a discussion of these Control Channels). The options listed
were:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2)</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3)</t>
</list>- For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could
indicate which Connectivity Verification types <xref target="RFC5085"></xref> were in use. The
options were:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Ping</t>
<t>Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping</t>
</list>- For each encapsulation type for which the use of the
Control Word is optional, the respondents could indicated the encapsulation
for which Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether
it was in use in the network. The encapsulations listed were:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Ethernet (Tagged Mode)</t>
<t>Ethernet (Raw Mode)</t>
<t>PPP</t>
<t>HDLC</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode)</t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)</t>
</list>- Finally, a freeform entry was provided for the respondent
to provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV
interoperability challenges, the survey or any network/vendor details
they wished to share.</t>
</section>
<section title="PW/VCCV Survey Highlights">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="VCCVResults" title="Survey Results">
<t></t>
<section title="Summary of Results">
<t>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 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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondents">
<t>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.</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>AboveNet</t>
<t>AMS-IX</t>
<t>Bright House Networks</t>
<t>Cox Communications</t>
<t>Deutsche Telekom AG</t>
<t>Easynet Global Services</t>
<t>France Telecom Orange</t>
<t>Internet Solution</t>
<t>MTN South Africa</t>
<t>OJSC MegaFon</t>
<t>Superonline</t>
<t>Telecom New Zealand</t>
<t>Telstra Corporation</t>
<t>Time Warner Cable</t>
<t>Tinet</t>
<t>Verizon</t>
<t>Wipro Technologies</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented">
<t>The following question was asked: "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:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5%</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4%</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8%</t>
<t>PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8%</t>
<t>HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.9%</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 17.6%</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 41.2%</t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6%</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0%</t>
<t>CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0%</t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8%</t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8%</t>
<t>Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap <xref target="RFC6307"></xref> = 5.9%</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Number of Pseudowires Deployed">
<t>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:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050</t>
<t>PPP - RFC 4618 = 500</t>
<t>HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959</t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0</t>
<t>CEP - RFC 4842 = 0</t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600</t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000</t>
<t>Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap <xref target="RFC6307"></xref> = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Additionally, the following encapsulations were listed as "In-Use" with no
quantity provided:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response</t>
<t>TDMoIP: 1 Response</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="VCCV Control Channel In Use">
<t>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:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 7</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3</t>
</list></t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 8</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4</t>
</list></t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 1</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>PPP - RFC 4618<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 0</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>HDLC - RFC 4618<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 0</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 1</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 3</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2</t>
</list></t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 1</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 1</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1</t>
</list></t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 0</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 0</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>CEP - RFC 4842<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 0</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 0</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1</t>
</list></t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087<list style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 0</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap <xref target="RFC6307"></xref><list
style="symbols">
<t>Control Word (Type 1) = 0</t>
<t>Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0</t>
<t>TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use">
<t>The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV
Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each
encapsulation type." Note that BFD was not one of the choices. The
responses were as follows:<list style="symbols">
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 5</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 11</t>
</list></t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 6</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 11</t>
</list></t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 2</t>
</list></t>
<t>PPP - RFC 4618<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>HDLC - RFC 4618<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 1</t>
</list></t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 2</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 5</t>
</list></t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 1</t>
</list></t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 3</t>
</list></t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 1</t>
</list></t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>CEP - RFC 4842<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 1</t>
</list></t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087<list style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 1</t>
</list></t>
<t>Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap <xref target="RFC6307"></xref><list
style="symbols">
<t>ICMP Ping = 0</t>
<t>LSP Ping = 0</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is Optional">
<t>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:</t>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Ethernet (Tagged Mode)<list style="symbols">
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment = 13</t>
<t>Used in Network = 6</t>
</list></t>
<t>Ethernet (Raw Mode)<list style="symbols">
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment = 14</t>
<t>Used in Network = 7</t>
</list></t>
<t>PPP<list style="symbols">
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment = 5</t>
<t>Used in Network = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>HDLC<list style="symbols">
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment = 4</t>
<t>Used in Network = 0</t>
</list></t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode)<list style="symbols">
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment = 3</t>
<t>Used in Network = 1</t>
</list></t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)<list style="symbols">
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment = 5</t>
<t>Used in Network = 1</t>
</list></t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section title="Open Ended Question">
<t>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.</t>
<t><list style="numbers">
<t>BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be
required for PW redundancy purpose)</t>
<t>Using CV is not required at the moment</t>
<t>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: • Reduced operational cost and
complexity • Reduced OSS development to coordinate
incompatible VCCV implementations. • 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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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?</t>
<t>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.</t>
</list></t>
<t></t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>As this document is an informational report of the PW/VCCV User Implementation
Survey results, no protocol security considerations are introduced.</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This document has no actions for IANA.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Appendix">
<t>The detailed responses are included in this appendix. The respondent
contact info has been removed.</t>
<t></t>
<section title="Respondent 1">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 423</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 2">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553</t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 5000</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553 - 50</t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - 1600</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router
Alert Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)</t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086: TTL Expiry (Type 3)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping</t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: No Response</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 3">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 800</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: No Response</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 4">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 200</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: No Response</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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?</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 5">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>PPP - RFC 4618</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap <xref target="RFC6307"></xref></t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 4000</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router
Alert Label (Type 2)</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
Label (Type 2)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 6">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 500</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 7">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 20</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 100</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: No Response</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 8">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717</t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 - In-Use</t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - In-Use</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: Router Alert Label (Type 2)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping</t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 9">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 19385</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 15757</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: No Response</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 10">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 325</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response</t>
<t>Used in Network: No Response</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 11">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>PPP - RFC 4618 HDLC - RFC 4618</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 2000</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100</t>
<t>PPP - RFC 4618 - 500</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 200</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC</t>
<t>Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode)</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 12">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50000</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 13">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 3</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 10-20</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 3</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry
(Type 3)</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry
(Type 3)</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1), TTL
Expiry (Type 3)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), Frame
Relay (Port Mode)</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 14">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 150</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router
Alert Label (Type 2)</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
Label (Type 2)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 15">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 20,000</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 20,000</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3)</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3)</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: TTL Expiry (Type 3)</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: TTL Expiry (Type 3)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response</t>
<t>Used in Network: No Response</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>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: • Reduced operational cost and complexity •
Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible VCCV
implementations. • 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.</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 16">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>No Response</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: No Response</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Using CV is not required at the moment</t>
</section>
<section title="Respondent 17">
<t>2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619</t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717</t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086</t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k</t>
<t>Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k</t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k</t>
<t>CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - >20k</t>
<t>TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - >20k</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1)</t>
<t>5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.</t>
<t>Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping</t>
<t>SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping</t>
<t>Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping</t>
<t>Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping</t>
<t>ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping</t>
<t>ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping</t>
<t>6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.</t>
<t>Supported by Network/Equipment: ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)</t>
<t>Used in Network: No Response</t>
<t>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.</t>
<t>BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be
required for PW redundancy purpose)</t>
</section>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="RFC4448"><front><title>Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks</title><author initials="L." surname="Martini" fullname="L. Martini"><organization/></author><author initials="E." surname="Rosen" fullname="E. Rosen"><organization/></author><author initials="N." surname="El-Aawar" fullname="N. El-Aawar"><organization/></author><author initials="G." surname="Heron" fullname="G. Heron"><organization/></author><date year="2006" month="April"/><abstract><t>An Ethernet pseudowire (PW) is used to carry Ethernet/802.3 Protocol Data Units (PDUs) over an MPLS network. This enables service providers to offer "emulated" Ethernet services over existing MPLS networks. This document specifies the encapsulation of Ethernet/802.3 PDUs within a pseudowire. It also specifies the procedures for using a PW to provide a "point-to-point Ethernet" service. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front><seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4448"/><format type="TXT" octets="49012" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4448.txt"/></reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4618"><front><title>Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks</title><author initials="L." surname="Martini" fullname="L. Martini"><organization/></author><author initials="E." surname="Rosen" fullname="E. Rosen"><organization/></author><author initials="G." surname="Heron" fullname="G. Heron"><organization/></author><author initials="A." surname="Malis" fullname="A. Malis"><organization/></author><date year="2006" month="September"/><abstract><t>A pseudowire (PW) can be used to carry Point to Point Protocol (PPP) or High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) Protocol Data Units over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network without terminating the PPP/HDLC protocol. This enables service providers to offer "emulated" HDLC, or PPP link services over existing MPLS networks. This document specifies the encapsulation of PPP/HDLC Packet Data Units (PDUs) within a pseudowire. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front><seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4618"/><format type="TXT" octets="33141" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4618.txt"/></reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4717"><front><title>Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS Networks</title><author initials="L." surname="Martini" fullname="L. Martini"><organization/></author><author initials="J." surname="Jayakumar" fullname="J. Jayakumar"><organization/></author><author initials="M." surname="Bocci" fullname="M. Bocci"><organization/></author><author initials="N." surname="El-Aawar" fullname="N. El-Aawar"><organization/></author><author initials="J." surname="Brayley" fullname="J. Brayley"><organization/></author><author initials="G." surname="Koleyni" fullname="G. Koleyni"><organization/></author><date year="2006" month="December"/><abstract><t>An Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) Pseudowire (PW) is used to carry ATM cells over an MPLS network. This enables service providers to offer "emulated" ATM services over existing MPLS networks. This document specifies methods for the encapsulation of ATM cells within a pseudowire. It also specifies the procedures for using a PW to provide an ATM service. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front><seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4717"/><format type="TXT" octets="86173" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4717.txt"/></reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5085">
<front>
<title>Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV):
A Control Channel for Pseudowires</title>
<author fullname="Thomas Nadeau" initials="T." role="editor"
surname="Nadeau">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Carlos Pignataro" initials="C." role="editor"
surname="Pignataro">
<organization></organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city></city>
<region></region>
<code></code>
<country></country>
</postal>
<phone></phone>
<facsimile></facsimile>
<email></email>
<uri></uri>
</address>
</author>
<date month="December" year="2007" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6307"><front><title>Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel Traffic over MPLS Networks</title><author initials="D." surname="Black" fullname="D. Black"><organization/></author><author initials="L." surname="Dunbar" fullname="L. Dunbar"><organization/></author><author initials="M." surname="Roth" fullname="M. Roth"><organization/></author><author initials="R." surname="Solomon" fullname="R. Solomon"><organization/></author><date year="2012" month="April"/><abstract><t>A Fibre Channel pseudowire (PW) is used to carry Fibre Channel traffic over an MPLS network. This enables service providers to take advantage of MPLS to offer "emulated" Fibre Channel services. This document specifies the encapsulation of Fibre Channel traffic within a pseudowire. It also specifies the common procedures for using a PW to provide a Fibre Channel service. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract></front><seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6307"/><format type="TXT" octets="49421" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6307.txt"/></reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-21 22:30:22 |