RFC 7079
The Pseudowire (PW) and Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results
The Pseudowire (PW) and Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results 🦋
- RFC number: 7079
- Category: Informational
- Date: November 2013
- ISSN: 2070-1721
- Authors: N. Del Regno, Ed. (Verizon Communications, Inc.) and A. Malis, Ed. (Consultant)
Abstract
okay so the IETF PWE3 working group has cooked up SO many encapsulations for carrying layer 1 and layer 2 service-specific PDUs and circuit data 💅. Most of them say the PW Control Word is required. But a few treat the Control Word as optional, and that wiggle room has been seen in practice to possibly cause interoperability concerns between implementations 😭. So this survey of the PW / VCCV user community was run to figure out what people are actually doing, and whether we should just always mandate the Control Word 🫶.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification. It's 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 gone through public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not every document the IESG approves is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so see Section 2 of RFC 5741 for that 🧚.
Info about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to give feedback on it can be found at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7079.
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 read these documents carefully, because 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 they are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
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 .............................................391. Introduction ✨
Most PWE3 encapsulations mandate the use of the Control Word (CW). The CW carries information that's essential to the emulation, it inhibits Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior, and it tells Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) packets apart from Pseudowire (PW) packets 🎀. But some encapsulations treat the Control Word as optional, so how CW gets implemented for those ones varies by equipment manufacturer, equipment model, and service provider network 🙈. On top of that, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) types and multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) types. All that flexibility has led to reports of interoperability issues in deployed networks, plus a bunch of documents trying to fix the mess 💀.
The encapsulations and modes where the Control Word is currently optional are:
- Ethernet Tagged Mode [RFC4448]
- Ethernet Raw Mode [RFC4448]
- Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [RFC4618]
- High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) [RFC4618]
- Frame Relay Port Mode [RFC4618]
- ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) [RFC4717]
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085] defines three Control Channel types for MPLS PWs. Type 1 uses the PW Control Word. Type 2 uses the Router Alert (RA) Label. Type 3 uses Time to Live (TTL) Expiration, e.g., an MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1 🌈. Type 2 (RA Label) is described as being "the preferred mode of VCCV operation when the Control Word is not present," but RFC 5085 doesn't name a mandatory Control Channel, which is how it keeps implementations interoperable 🧐. The closest it gets to mandating one is the requirement to support Type 1 (Control Word) whenever the CW is present. So the three options give you seven implementation permutations (assuming you have to support at least one Control Channel type to provide VCCV). Those permutations are exactly why several VCCV users have run into interoperability challenges 😭.
To figure out the best way to deal with the interop issues, the PWE3 working group decided to ask the PW and VCCV user community how they implement things. This document presents the survey questionnaire and the info sent back by the people in that community who took part 🦋.
1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview
Per the direction of the PWE3 working group chairs, a survey was created to sample how PWs are implemented, with a specific focus on Control Word usage, and how VCCV is implemented, with a focus on Control Channel and Control Type usage. The survey was built from a series of questions based on direction from the WG chairs, and it opened to the public on November 4, 2010 💅. It was run using the SurveyMonkey tool, http://www.surveymonkey.com. The survey ran from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011, and it was repeatedly promoted on the PWE3 email list during that whole stretch 📣.
The editors took precautions to make sure the sample and the data were valid. Only responses from recognizable non-vendor, company-affiliated email addresses were accepted. Unrecognizable or personal email addresses would have been contacted to confirm they were valid, but none came in. Only one response was accepted from each company. If a company had sent in multiple responses, they would have been contacted to find out whether the responses were duplicates or additional info. That never happened 🫶.
1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form
The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey asked for the following info about user implementations. The lists of implementation choices were taken word for word from the survey 📝:
- Responding Organization. Anonymous responses weren't allowed, because every response needed a valid email address to validate it. Even so, the results are reported anonymously, except for an alphabetical list of participating organizations in Section 2.2 🌸.
- Encapsulations (and options therein) implemented by the respondent. This covered the encapsulations known at the time, including the WG document "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now [RFC6307]). The list was:
- Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
- Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
- Structure-Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP) - RFC 4553
- PPP - RFC 4618
- HDLC - RFC 4618
- 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
- ATM (AAL5 Service Data Unit (SDU) Mode) - RFC 4717
- ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
- Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP) - RFC 4842
- Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network (CESoPSN) - RFC 5086
- Time Division Multiplexing over IP (TDMoIP) - RFC 5087
- 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 give a number, or for privacy, they could just answer "In-Use" instead 🔒.
- Control Channel [RFC5085] in use, for each encapsulation listed above. (See Section 1 for a discussion of these Control Channels.) The options were:
- Control Word (Type 1)
- Router Alert Label (Type 2)
- TTL Expiry (Type 3)
- Connectivity Verification types [RFC5085] in use, for each encapsulation listed above. The options were:
- Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Ping
- Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
- Control Word support, for each encapsulation type where the Control Word is optional. Respondents could say which encapsulations the equipment vendor supported with the CW, and whether the CW was also in use in the network. The encapsulations listed were:
- Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
- Ethernet (Raw Mode)
- PPP
- HDLC
- Frame Relay (Port Mode)
- ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
- Free-form feedback. Respondents got a free-form box to share feedback about PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, the survey itself, or any other network or vendor details they wanted to share 💖.
1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights ✨
okay so the survey got seventeen responses that passed the validity checks from Section 1.1. 🎀 The companies that responded are listed in Section 2.2, so you can peek there next 👀
2. Survey Results 💅
2.1. Summary of Results 🔥
bestie, this one's the tea ☕ Before the survey, people were lowkey arguing about whether the Control Word could just be required everywhere, and a few proposals tried to do exactly that. But the survey showed that a LOT of PWs are running without the CW 😭 So this is basically a reminder that CW-less modes are still very much in use, and they can't be deprecated anytime soon. no cap 🫶
2.2. Respondents 🦋
These companies took part in the PW/VCCV Implementation Survey. They're listed alphabetically, the same way they came in with the responses 📋 Only non-vendors (users and service providers) were asked to respond. No vendors responded (and if any had, their responses wouldn't have been counted). The data has been aggregated, so no single company's response gets detailed in here 🙈
- AboveNet
- AMS-IX
- Bright House Networks
- Cox Communications
- Deutsche Telekom AG
- Easynet Global Services
- France Telecom Orange
- Internet Solution
- MTN South Africa
- OJSC MegaFon
- Superonline
- Telecom New Zealand
- Telstra Corporation
- Time Warner Cable
- Tinet
- Verizon
- Wipro Technologies
2.3. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented 🌸
The question was: "In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented." Here's the percentage of responses for each one, and yes the Ethernet ones are giving main character energy 👑
- Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5%
- Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4%
- SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8%
- PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8%
- HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.9%
- Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 17.6%
- Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 41.2%
- ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%
- ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6%
- ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%
- ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0%
- CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0%
- CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8%
- TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8%
- Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307) = 5.9%
2.4. Number of Pseudowires Deployed 🧚
They 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." Here's how many were in use for each encapsulation 📊
- Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861
- Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231
- SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050
- PPP - RFC 4618 = 500
- HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0
- Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002
- Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959
- ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000
- ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103
- ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
- ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
- CEP - RFC 4842 = 0
- CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600
- TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000
- Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307) = 0
Some people answered with a open-ended "> XXXXX" style, meaning the real number was bigger than the one they gave. 🫠 When that happened, the number they did give was the one used in the sums above. So >20K and 20K+ both counted as 20K ✨
A few encapsulations also got an "In-Use" answer but no quantity:
- Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses
- ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response
- TDMoIP: 1 Response
2.5. VCCV Control Channel in Use 🎀
The instructions were: "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 are how many responses picked each option 💜
- Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
- Control Word (Type 1) = 7
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3
- Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
- Control Word (Type 1) = 8
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4
- SAToP - RFC 4553
- Control Word (Type 1) = 1
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
- PPP - RFC 4618
- Control Word (Type 1) = 0
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
- HDLC - RFC 4618
- Control Word (Type 1) = 0
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
- Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
- Control Word (Type 1) = 1
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
- Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
- Control Word (Type 1) = 3
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2
- ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
- Control Word (Type 1) = 1
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
- ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
- Control Word (Type 1) = 1
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1
- ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
- Control Word (Type 1) = 0
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
- ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
- Control Word (Type 1) = 0
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
- CEP - RFC 4842
- Control Word (Type 1) = 0
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
- CESoPSN - RFC 5086
- Control Word (Type 1) = 0
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1
- TDMoIP - RFC 5087
- Control Word (Type 1) = 0
- Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
- TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
- 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
2.6. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types in Use 🦋
The instructions were: "Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type." Heads up, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) wasn't one of the options 🙃 Here's what people picked:
- Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
- ICMP Ping = 5
- LSP Ping = 11
- Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
- ICMP Ping = 6
- LSP Ping = 11
- SAToP - RFC 4553
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 2
- PPP - RFC 4618
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 0
- HDLC - RFC 4618
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 0
- Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 1
- Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
- ICMP Ping = 2
- LSP Ping = 5
- ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 1
- ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 3
- ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 1
- ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 0
- CEP - RFC 4842
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 0
- CESoPSN - RFC 5086
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 1
- TDMoIP - RFC 5087
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 1
- Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307)
- ICMP Ping = 0
- LSP Ping = 0
2.7. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for Which CW Is Optional 💖
The instructions were: "Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional." Here's what came back 🌈
- Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
- Supported by Network/Equipment = 13
- Used in Network = 6
- Ethernet (Raw Mode)
- Supported by Network/Equipment = 14
- Used in Network = 7
- PPP
- Supported by Network/Equipment = 5
- Used in Network = 0
- HDLC
- Supported by Network/Equipment = 4
- Used in Network = 0
- Frame Relay (Port Mode)
- Supported by Network/Equipment = 3
- Used in Network = 1
- ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
- Supported by Network/Equipment = 5
- Used in Network = 1
2.8. Open-Ended Question 💌
Okay so there was a little space at the end for feedback, and the prompt literally said: "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." 🫶 The answers are anonymous, and they're word-for-word exactly as people wrote them, so no edits from me 💅
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.
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 🔒
Since this is just an informational report on the PW/VCCV User Implementation Survey results, no protocol security considerations are introduced. Phew, no new attack surface here ✨
4. Acknowledgements 🫶
We wanna give a huge thank you to the chairs of the PWE3 working group 👑 They guided us and reviewed the survey questions, and we're so grateful. We also really, truly want to thank everyone listed in Section 2.2. who took the time and effort to participate 💖
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.Appendix A. Survey Responses 🌈
The detailed responses are included in this appendix, so you can see exactly what each respondent picked 🍓 Their contact info has been removed, obviously 🙈
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 ResponseA.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
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
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 ResponseA.4. Respondent 4 💖
okay respondent 4 really said "let me list my encapsulations and VCCV answers and keep it efficient" 💅 she's got the answers for questions 2 through 7, so here's the full tea 🫶
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
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?her Ethernet Tagged Mode count is 1000 and her Ethernet Raw Mode count is 200 🌸 the big question in her feedback is about getting end-to-end management and fault detection without VCCV when the equipment doesn't offer those control-channel options 🥺
A.5. Respondent 5 🦋
respondent 5 brought the whole encapsulation buffet 🧁 Ethernet, PPP, Frame Relay, and Fibre Channel, all listed out and her feedback question got a "No Response" 🙈
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)
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 Responseshe's running 4000 Ethernet Tagged Mode pseudowires, and both Ethernet modes use Control Word (Type 1) and Router Alert Label (Type 2) as their VCCV control channels ✨
A.6. Respondent 6 🌈
respondent 6 is keeping it simple and sweet 🍓 two Ethernet encapsulations, both with Control Word (Type 1) and the connectivity checks are ICMP Ping and LSP Ping, iykyk 🧚
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 - 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 Responsecount-wise, that's 1000+ Ethernet Tagged Mode and 500 Ethernet Raw Mode 🌿
A.7. Respondent 7 👑
respondent 7 has the main character energy with ATM 🦄 and the feedback section is serving real service-design lore 📚
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.
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.respondent 7 says the ATM (1:1 Mode) count is 100 and the Ethernet Raw Mode count is 20, and both use LSP Ping 💅 their feedback walks through ATMoMPLS and EoMPLS services, including the QoS markings and MPLS TE tunnels they use 🎀
A.8. Respondent 8 🍭
last but never least, respondent 8 is bringing three encapsulations to the party: Ethernet Raw Mode, ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode), and TDMoIP 🎉 everything is marked In-Use, no specific numbers 🙈
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)
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.respondent 8 says PW VCCV is a very useful tool for finding faults in each PW channel 🫶 and they flag interoperability challenges with the Ethernet OAM mechanism 👀
A.9. Respondent 9 🎀
okay bestie, Respondent 9 is serving some Frame Relay and Ethernet realness 👀
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
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 ResponseA.10. Respondent 10 🦋
Respondent 10 is all about Ethernet Raw Mode, and the numbers are giving focus 🧚
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)
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 ResponseA.11. Respondent 11 💅
Respondent 11 has the most encapsulation types so far, so this one is a whole main character moment 👑
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
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 ResponseA.12. Respondent 12 🌸
Respondent 12 reports a whopping 50000 Ethernet Raw Mode pseudowires, no cap 😭
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
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 ResponseA.13. Respondent 13 🍓
Respondent 13 is giving full-stack coverage: Ethernet, Frame Relay and ATM all in one 🧁
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
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 ResponseA.14. Respondent 14 🧚
Last one in this part, and Respondent 14 keeps it clean with Ethernet only 💜
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)
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 ResponseA.15. Respondent 15 💖
Okay bestie, respondent 15 is giving main character energy 💅 Here's what they said.
2. So question two asks which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented across your whole network and all products 🦋
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 47173. Question three wants the approximate number of pseudowires deployed for each encapsulation type 🌸 That means pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so.
*Note: if you're using a PW Encap Type but can't give a number, mark it "In-Use" 🙈
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 - 20,0004. Question four asks which VCCV Control Channel is used for each encapsulation type ✨ Networks vary a lot, so for the network in general, pick all that 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)5. Question five is about which VCCV Connectivity Verification types get used in their 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 Ping6. Question six asks about support for and use of the Control Word, for the encapsulations where it's optional 🎀
Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response
Used in Network: No Response7. Question seven is the open feedback box, for PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey, or any network or vendor details 💜 Respondent 15 really went for it here, so get comfy 🧚
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. That would give COMPANY big wins in reduced operational overheads when handling cross-domain faults ✨ Having a uniform VCCV feature implementation across a 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.
Also, right now some of COMPANY's deployed VCCV traffic flows (on some vendor platforms) are not guaranteed to follow the customer's application traffic, and that's a key operational requirement 😭 Because of that, the response from the circuit ping can't faithfully reflect the status of the circuit, which makes the operational status of their networks kinda ambiguous 💀 An in-band method is highly preferred. COMPANY has a clear preference for VCCV Circuit Ping using PWE Control Word, and they're pursuing that with each of their vendors 🫶
A.16. Respondent 16 🦋
Respondent 16 keeps it short and sweet 🍓
2. Question two asks which pseudowire encapsulations are implemented across the whole network and all products 💅
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 44483. Question three asks for the approximate number of pseudowires per encapsulation type, meaning those in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so 🌸
*Note: use "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types you use but can't give a number for 🙈
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1004. Question four asks which VCCV Control Channel gets used for each encapsulation type, and the answer here is a big fat blank 💀
No Response5. Question five asks which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used for each encapsulation type ✨
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping6. Question six asks about Control Word support and use, for the optional encapsulations 🎀
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
Used in Network: No Response7. The feedback box for question seven says it all, honestly 😌
Using CV is not required at the momentA.17. Respondent 17 🌈
Respondent 17 is the most detailed of the bunch, so buckle up 🚀
2. Question two asks which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented across the network and all products 🔥
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 50873. Question three asks for the approximate number of pseudowires per encapsulation type, meaning in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned 💖
*Note: mark "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types you use but can't count 🙈
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 - >20k4. Question four asks which VCCV Control Channel gets used for each encapsulation type, and respondent 17 went with Control Word across the board ✨
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. Question five asks which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used 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 Ping6. Question six asks about Control Word support and use for the optional encapsulations 🎀
Supported by Network/Equipment: ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
Used in Network: No Response7. Last one, the feedback box for question seven, and respondent 17 spotted a gap 👀
BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (it may be required for PW redundancy purposes) 🧚
Authors' Addresses ✨
Here's where you can find the editors, bestie 💜
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📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc7079 2013-11
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms