idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits59163/draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (March 7, 2011) is 4093 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group N. Del Regno, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Verizon Communications Inc 4 Intended status: Informational March 7, 2011 5 Expires: September 8, 2011 7 The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) 8 Implementation Survey Results 9 draft-delregno-pw-vccv-impl-survey-results-00 11 Abstract 13 Most Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate 14 the use of the Control Word (CW) in order to better emulate the 15 services for which the encapsulations have been defined. However, 16 some encapulations treat the Control Word as optional. As a result, 17 implementations of the CW, for encapsulations for which it is 18 optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment model and service 19 provider network. Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity 20 Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) types and 21 multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types. This flexibility has 22 led to reports of interoperability issues within deployed networks 23 and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the situation. This 24 survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to determine 25 implementation trends. The survey and results is presented herein. 27 Requirements Language 29 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 30 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 31 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 33 Status of this Memo 35 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 36 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 38 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 39 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 40 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 41 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 43 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 44 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 45 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 46 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2011. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 2. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 2.1. Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 2.2. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 2.3. Number of Pseudowires Deployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 2.4. VCCV Control Channel In Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use . . . . . . . 11 77 2.6. Control Word Support for Encaps for which CW is 78 Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 79 2.7. Open Ended Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 81 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 82 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 83 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 84 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 85 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 87 1. Introduction 89 The PWE3 working group has defined many encapsulations of various 90 Layer 1 and Layer 2 links. Within these encapsulations, there are 91 often several modes of encapsulation which have differing 92 requirements in order to fully emulate the service. As such, the use 93 of the PWE3 Control Word is mandated in many of the encapsulations, 94 but not all. This can present interoperability issues related to A) 95 Control Word use and B) VCCV Control Channel negotiation in mixed 96 implementation environments. 98 The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently 99 optional are: 101 o Ethernet Tagged Mode 103 o Ethernet Raw Mode 105 o PPP 107 o HDLC 109 o Frame Relay Port Mode 111 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 113 [RFC5085] defines three Control Channel types for MPLS PW's: Type 1, 114 using the Pseudowire Control Word, Type 2, using the Router Alert 115 Label, and Type 3, using TTL Expiration (e.g. MPLS PW Label with TTL 116 == 1). While Type 2 (RA Label) is indicated as being "the preferred 117 mode of VCCV operation when the Control Word is not present," RFC 118 5085 does not indicate a mandatory Control Channel to ensure 119 interoperable implementations. The closest it comes to mandating a 120 control channel is the requirement to support Type 1 (Control Word) 121 whenever the control word is present. As such, the three options 122 yield seven implementation permutations (assuming you have to support 123 at least one Control Channel type to provide VCCV). Due to these 124 permuations, interoperability challenges have been identified by 125 several VCCV users. 127 In order to assess the best approach to address the observed 128 interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit 129 feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding 130 implementation. This document presents the survey and the 131 information returned by the user community who participated. 133 1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview 135 Per the direction of the PWE3 Working Group chairs, a survey was 136 created to sample the nature of implementations of Pseudowires, with 137 specific emphasis on Control Word usage, and VCCV, with emphasis on 138 Control Channel and Control Type usage. The survey consisted of a 139 series of questions based on direction of the WG chairs and the 140 survey opened to the public on November 4, 2010. The URL for the 141 survey (now closed) was http://www.surveymonkey.com/pwe3/. The 142 survey ran from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011. 144 1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form 146 The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following information 147 about user implementations: 149 - Responding Organziation. No provisions were made for anonymity. 150 All responses required a valid email address in order to validate the 151 survey response. 153 - Of the various encapsulations (and options therein) known at the 154 time, including the WG draft for Fiber Channel), which were 155 implemented b the respondent. These included: 157 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 159 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 161 o SAToP - RFC 4553 163 o PPP - RFC 4618 165 o HDLC - RFC 4618 167 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 169 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 171 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 173 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 175 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 177 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 179 o CEP - RFC 4842 180 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 182 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 184 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap 186 - Approximately how many Pseudowires of each type were deployed. 187 Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy, could 188 just respond "In-Use" instead. 190 - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicated 191 which Control Channel was in use. The options listed were: 193 o Control Word (Type 1) 195 o Router Alert Label (Type 2) 197 o TTL Expiry (Type 3) 199 - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate 200 which Connectivity Verification types were in use. The options were: 202 o ICMP Ping 204 o LSP Ping 206 - For each encapsulation type for which the use of the Control Word 207 is optional, the respondents could indicated the encaps for which 208 Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether it was 209 in use in the network. The encaps listed were: 211 o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 213 o Ethernet (Raw Mode) 215 o PPP 217 o HDLC 219 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) 221 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 223 - Finally, a freeform entry was provided for the respondent to 224 provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV 225 interoperability challenges, the survey or any network/vendor details 226 they wished to share. 228 1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights 230 There were 17 valid responses to the survey. The following companies 231 responded. 233 2. Survey Results 235 2.1. Respondents 237 The following companies participated in the PW/VCCV Implementation 238 Survey. The data provided has been aggregated. No specific 239 company's reponse will be detailed herein. 241 o Time Warner Cable 243 o Bright House Networks 245 o Tinet 247 o AboveNet 249 o Telecom New Zealand 251 o Cox Communications 253 o MTN South Africa 255 o Wipro Technologies 257 o Verizon 259 o AMS-IX 261 o Superonline 263 o Deutsche Telekom AG 265 o Internet Solution 267 o Easynet Global Services 269 o Telstra Corporation 271 o OJSC MegaFon 273 o France Telecom Orange 275 2.2. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented 277 The following question was asked: "In your network in general, across 278 all products, please indicate which Pseudowire encapsulations your 279 company has implemented." Of all responses, the following list shows 280 the percentage of responses for each encapsulation: 282 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 77.8% 284 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 77.8% 286 o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.1% 288 o PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.1% 290 o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.6% 292 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 16.7% 294 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 44.4% 296 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.6% 298 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 22.2% 300 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.6% 302 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0% 304 o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0% 306 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.1% 308 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.1% 310 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 5.6% 312 2.3. Number of Pseudowires Deployed 314 The following question was asked: "Approximately how many Pseudowires 315 are deployed of each encapsulation type. Note, this should be the 316 number of pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned 317 to do so." The following list shows the number of psudowires in use 318 for each encapsulation: 320 o Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861 321 o Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231 323 o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050 325 o PPP - RFC 4618 = 500 327 o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0 329 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002 331 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959 333 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000 335 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103 337 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 339 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 341 o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0 343 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600 345 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000 347 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 0 349 In the above responses, on several occasions the response was in the 350 form of "> XXXXX" where the response indicated a number greater than 351 the one provided. Where applicable, the number itself was used in 352 the sums above. For example, ">20K" and "20K+" yielded 20K. 354 Additionally, the following encaps were listed as "In-Use" with no 355 quantity provided: 357 o Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses 359 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response 361 o TDMoIP: 1 Response 363 2.4. VCCV Control Channel In Use 365 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV 366 Control Channel is used for each encapsulation type. Understanding 367 that users may have different networks with varying implementations, 368 for your network in general, please select all which apply." The 369 numbers below indicate the number of responses. The responses were: 371 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 373 * Control Word (Type 1) = 7 375 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3 377 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3 379 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 381 * Control Word (Type 1) = 8 383 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4 385 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4 387 o SAToP - RFC 4553 389 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 391 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 393 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 395 o PPP - RFC 4618 397 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 399 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 401 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 403 o HDLC - RFC 4618 405 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 407 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 409 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 411 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 413 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 415 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 416 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 418 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 420 * Control Word (Type 1) = 3 422 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 424 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2 426 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 428 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 430 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 432 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 434 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 436 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 438 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 440 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1 442 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 444 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 446 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1 448 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 450 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 452 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 454 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 456 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 458 o CEP - RFC 4842 460 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 462 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 463 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 465 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 467 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 469 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 471 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1 473 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 475 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 477 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 479 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 481 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap 483 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 485 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 487 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 489 2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use 491 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV 492 Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each 493 encapsulation type." Note that BFD was not one of the choices. The 494 responses were as follows: 496 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 498 * ICMP Ping = 5 500 * LSP Ping = 11 502 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 504 * ICMP Ping = 6 506 * LSP Ping = 11 508 o SAToP - RFC 4553 509 * ICMP Ping = 0 511 * LSP Ping = 2 513 o PPP - RFC 4618 515 * ICMP Ping = 0 517 * LSP Ping = 0 519 o HDLC - RFC 4618 521 * ICMP Ping = 0 523 * LSP Ping = 0 525 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 527 * ICMP Ping = 0 529 * LSP Ping = 1 531 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 533 * ICMP Ping = 2 535 * LSP Ping = 5 537 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 539 * ICMP Ping = 0 541 * LSP Ping = 1 543 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 545 * ICMP Ping = 0 547 * LSP Ping = 3 549 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 551 * ICMP Ping = 0 553 * LSP Ping = 1 555 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 557 * ICMP Ping = 0 559 * LSP Ping = 0 561 o CEP - RFC 4842 563 * ICMP Ping = 0 565 * LSP Ping = 0 567 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 569 * ICMP Ping = 0 571 * LSP Ping = 1 573 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 575 * ICMP Ping = 0 577 * LSP Ping = 1 579 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap 581 * ICMP Ping = 0 583 * LSP Ping = 0 585 2.6. Control Word Support for Encaps for which CW is Optional 587 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate your 588 network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations 589 for which the Control Word is optional." The responses were: 591 o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 593 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 13 595 * Used in Network = 6 597 o Ethernet (Raw Mode) 599 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 14 601 * Used in Network = 7 603 o PPP 605 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 5 607 * Used in Network = 0 609 o HDLC 611 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 4 613 * Used in Network = 0 615 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) 617 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 3 619 * Used in Network = 1 621 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 623 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 5 625 * Used in Network = 1 627 2.7. Open Ended Question 629 Space was provided for user feedback. The following instructions 630 were given: "Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding 631 PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this 632 survey or any network/vendor details you wish to share." Below are 633 the responses, made anonymous. 635 1. BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be 636 required for PW redundancy purpose) 638 2. Using CV is not required at the moment 640 3. COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple 641 vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV 642 Control Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor 643 platforms. This will provide COMPANY with significant advantages 644 in reduced operational overheads when handling cross-domain 645 faults. Having a uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY 646 multi-vendor network leads to: o Reduced operational cost and 647 complexity o Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible 648 VCCV implementations. o Increased end-end service availability 649 when handing faults. In addition, currently some of COMPANY 650 deployed VCCV traffic flows (on some vendor platforms) are not 651 guaranteed to follow those of the customer's application traffic 652 (a key operational requirement). As a result, the response from 653 the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect the status of the 654 circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the operational 655 status of our networks. An in-band method is highly preferred, 656 with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit Ping 657 using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with 658 each of COMPANY vendors. 660 4. PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW 661 channel. Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW 662 VCCV using BFD is another better option. Introperbility 663 challences are with Ethernet OAM mechanism. 665 5. We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS 666 ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over 667 IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson 668 Media Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing 669 configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is 670 done for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS 671 encapsulated ATM packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for 672 transporting 2G/3G traffic from network such as Node-B to RNC's 673 over IP/MPLS backbone core network. QoS marking is done for 674 getting guaranteed bandwidth treatment in the core for these MPLS 675 encapsulated ATM packets. In addition to basic L2VPN service 676 configuration, these traffic are routed via MPLS TE tunnels with 677 dedicated path and bandwidth defined to avoid bandwidth related 678 congestion. 680 6. EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV 681 control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. 682 How can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of 683 PW without VCCV in such cases? 685 7. I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience 686 interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space 687 who are only implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who 688 have tailed their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul 689 space and mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space. 690 That's all I've got. 692 3. Security Considerations 694 As this document is a report of the PW/VCCV User Implementation 695 Survey results, no security considerations are introduced. 697 4. Acknowledgements 699 I would like to thank the chairs of the PWE3 Working Group for their 700 guidance and review of the Survey questions. I would also like to 701 sincerly thank those who took the time and effort to participate. 703 5. References 705 5.1. Normative References 707 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 708 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 710 5.2. Informative References 712 [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual 713 Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control 714 Channel for Pseudowires", December 2007. 716 Author's Address 718 Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno (editor) 719 Verizon Communications Inc 720 400 International Pkwy 721 Richardson, TX 75081 722 US 724 Email: nick.delregno@verizon.com