idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits48132/draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-01.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 27, 2013) is 3250 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 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 A. Malis, Ed. 4 Intended status: Informational Verizon Communications Inc 5 Expires: December 29, 2013 June 27, 2013 7 The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) 8 Implementation Survey Results 9 draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-01 11 Abstract 13 Most pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate 14 the use of the Control Word (CW) to carry information essential to 15 the emulation, to inhibit ECMP behavior, and to discriminate OAM from 16 PW packets. However, some encapsulations treat the Control Word as 17 optional. As a result, implementations of the CW, for encapsulations 18 for which it is optional, vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment 19 model and service provider network. Similarly, Virtual Circuit 20 Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports three Control Channel (CC) 21 types and multiple Connectivity Verification (CV) Types. This 22 flexibility has led to reports of interoperability issues within 23 deployed networks and associated drafts to attempt to remedy the 24 situation. This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted 25 to determine implementation trends. The survey and results is 26 presented herein. 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2013. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 2. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 2.1. Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 2.2. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 2.3. Number of Pseudowires Deployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 2.4. VCCV Control Channel In Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use . . . . . . . 11 72 2.6. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is 73 Optional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 2.7. Open Ended Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 75 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 76 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 77 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 78 6. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 79 6.1. Respondent 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 80 6.2. Respondent 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 81 6.3. Respondent 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 82 6.4. Respondent 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 83 6.5. Respondent 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 84 6.6. Respondent 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 85 6.7. Respondent 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 86 6.8. Respondent 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 87 6.9. Respondent 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 88 6.10. Respondent 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 89 6.11. Respondent 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 90 6.12. Respondent 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 91 6.13. Respondent 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 92 6.14. Respondent 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 93 6.15. Respondent 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 94 6.16. Respondent 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 95 6.17. Respondent 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 96 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 97 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 99 1. Introduction 101 The IETF PWE3 Working Group has defined many encapsulations of 102 various layer 1 and layer 2 service-specific PDUs and circuit data. 103 In most of these encapsulations, use of the PW Control Word is 104 required. However, there are several encapsulations for which the 105 Control Word is optional, and this optionality has been seen in 106 practice to possibly introduce interoperability concerns between 107 multiple implementations of those encapsulations. 109 The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently 110 optional are: 112 o Ethernet Tagged Mode [RFC4448] 114 o Ethernet Raw Mode [RFC4448] 116 o PPP [RFC4618] 118 o HDLC [RFC4618] 120 o Frame Relay Port Mode [RFC4618] 122 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) [RFC4717] 124 Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085] defines 125 three Control Channel types for MPLS PW's: Type 1, using the 126 pseudowire Control Word, Type 2, using the Router Alert (RA) Label, 127 and Type 3, using TTL Expiration (e.g. MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1). 128 While Type 2 (RA Label) is indicated as being "the preferred mode of 129 VCCV operation when the Control Word is not present," RFC 5085 does 130 not indicate a mandatory Control Channel to ensure interoperable 131 implementations. The closest it comes to mandating a control channel 132 is the requirement to support Type 1 (Control Word) whenever the 133 control word is present. As such, the three options yield seven 134 implementation permutations (assuming you have to support at least 135 one Control Channel type to provide VCCV). Due to these 136 permutations, interoperability challenges have been identified by 137 several VCCV users. 139 In order to assess the best approach to address the observed 140 interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit 141 feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding 142 implementation. This document presents the survey and the 143 information returned by the user community who participated. 145 Note that the intention of this document is to not draw conclusions 146 based upon these results, but rather to simply report the results to 147 the PWE3 working group for its use when developing other drafts. 149 1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview 151 Per the direction of the PWE3 Working Group chairs, a survey was 152 created to sample the nature of implementations of pseudowires, with 153 specific emphasis on Control Word usage, and VCCV, with emphasis on 154 Control Channel and Control Type usage. The survey consisted of a 155 series of questions based on direction of the WG chairs and the 156 survey opened to the public on November 4, 2010. The survey was 157 conducted using the SurveyMonkey tool, http://www.surveymonkey.com . 158 The survey ran from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011 and was 159 repeatedly publicized on the pwe3 email list over that period. 161 1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form 163 The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following information 164 about user implementations (the lists of implementation choices were 165 taken verbatim from the survey): 167 - Responding Organization. No provisions were made for anonymity. 168 All responses required a valid email address in order to validate the 169 survey response. 171 - Of the various encapsulations (and options therein) known at the 172 time, including the WG draft for Fiber Channel, now [RFC6307]), which 173 were implemented by the respondent. These included: 175 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 177 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 179 o SAToP - RFC 4553 181 o PPP - RFC 4618 183 o HDLC - RFC 4618 185 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 187 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 189 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 191 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 192 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 194 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 196 o CEP - RFC 4842 198 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 200 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 202 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap 204 - Approximately how many pseudowires of each type were deployed. 205 Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy, could 206 just respond "In-Use" instead. 208 - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicated 209 which Control Channel was in use. The options listed were: 211 o Control Word (Type 1) 213 o Router Alert Label (Type 2) 215 o TTL Expiry (Type 3) 217 - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate 218 which Connectivity Verification types were in use. The options were: 220 o ICMP Ping 222 o LSP Ping 224 - For each encapsulation type for which the use of the Control Word 225 is optional, the respondents could indicated the encapsulation for 226 which Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether it 227 was in use in the network. The encapsulations listed were: 229 o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 231 o Ethernet (Raw Mode) 233 o PPP 235 o HDLC 237 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) 239 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 240 - Finally, a freeform entry was provided for the respondent to 241 provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV 242 interoperability challenges, the survey or any network/vendor details 243 they wished to share. 245 1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights 247 There were 17 valid responses to the survey. The responding 248 companies are listed below in Section 2.1. 250 2. Survey Results 252 2.1. Respondents 254 The following companies, listed here alphabetically, participated in 255 the PW/VCCV Implementation Survey. Responses were only solicited 256 from non-vendors (users and service providers), and no vendors 257 responded (although if they had, their response would not have been 258 included). The data provided has been aggregated. No specific 259 company's response will be detailed herein. 261 o AboveNet 263 o AMS-IX 265 o Bright House Networks 267 o Cox Communications 269 o Deutsche Telekom AG 271 o Easynet Global Services 273 o France Telecom Orange 275 o Internet Solution 277 o MTN South Africa 279 o OJSC MegaFon 281 o Superonline 283 o Telecom New Zealand 285 o Telstra Corporation 287 o Time Warner Cable 288 o Tinet 290 o Verizon 292 o Wipro Technologies 294 2.2. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented 296 The following question was asked: "In your network in general, across 297 all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your 298 company has implemented." Of all responses, the following list shows 299 the percentage of responses for each encapsulation: 301 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5% 303 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4% 305 o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8% 307 o PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8% 309 o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.9% 311 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 17.6% 313 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 41.2% 315 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9% 317 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6% 319 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9% 321 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0% 323 o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0% 325 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8% 327 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8% 329 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 5.9% 331 2.3. Number of Pseudowires Deployed 333 The following question was asked: "Approximately how many pseudowires 334 are deployed of each encapsulation type. Note, this should be the 335 number of pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned 336 to do so." The following list shows the number of pseudowires in use 337 for each encapsulation: 339 o Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861 341 o Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231 343 o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050 345 o PPP - RFC 4618 = 500 347 o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0 349 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002 351 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959 353 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000 355 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103 357 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 359 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 361 o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0 363 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600 365 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000 367 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 0 369 In the above responses, on several occasions the response was in the 370 form of "> XXXXX" where the response indicated a number greater than 371 the one provided. Where applicable, the number itself was used in 372 the sums above. For example, ">20K" and "20K+" yielded 20K. 374 Additionally, the following encapsulations were listed as "In-Use" 375 with no quantity provided: 377 o Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses 378 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response 380 o TDMoIP: 1 Response 382 2.4. VCCV Control Channel In Use 384 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV 385 Control Channel is used for each encapsulation type. Understanding 386 that users may have different networks with varying implementations, 387 for your network in general, please select all which apply." The 388 numbers below indicate the number of responses. The responses were: 390 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 392 * Control Word (Type 1) = 7 394 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3 396 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3 398 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 400 * Control Word (Type 1) = 8 402 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4 404 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4 406 o SAToP - RFC 4553 408 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 410 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 412 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 414 o PPP - RFC 4618 416 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 418 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 420 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 422 o HDLC - RFC 4618 424 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 425 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 427 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 429 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 431 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 433 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 435 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 437 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 439 * Control Word (Type 1) = 3 441 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 443 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2 445 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 447 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 449 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 451 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 453 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 455 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 457 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 459 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1 461 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 463 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 465 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1 467 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 469 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 471 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 472 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 474 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 476 o CEP - RFC 4842 478 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 480 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 482 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 484 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 486 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 488 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 490 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1 492 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 494 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 496 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 498 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 500 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap 502 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 504 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 506 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 508 2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use 510 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV 511 Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each 512 encapsulation type." Note that BFD was not one of the choices. The 513 responses were as follows: 515 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 517 * ICMP Ping = 5 519 * LSP Ping = 11 521 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 523 * ICMP Ping = 6 525 * LSP Ping = 11 527 o SAToP - RFC 4553 529 * ICMP Ping = 0 531 * LSP Ping = 2 533 o PPP - RFC 4618 535 * ICMP Ping = 0 537 * LSP Ping = 0 539 o HDLC - RFC 4618 541 * ICMP Ping = 0 543 * LSP Ping = 0 545 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 547 * ICMP Ping = 0 549 * LSP Ping = 1 551 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 553 * ICMP Ping = 2 555 * LSP Ping = 5 557 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 559 * ICMP Ping = 0 561 * LSP Ping = 1 563 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 565 * ICMP Ping = 0 567 * LSP Ping = 3 569 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 571 * ICMP Ping = 0 573 * LSP Ping = 1 575 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 577 * ICMP Ping = 0 579 * LSP Ping = 0 581 o CEP - RFC 4842 583 * ICMP Ping = 0 585 * LSP Ping = 0 587 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 589 * ICMP Ping = 0 591 * LSP Ping = 1 593 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 595 * ICMP Ping = 0 597 * LSP Ping = 1 599 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap 601 * ICMP Ping = 0 603 * LSP Ping = 0 605 2.6. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is Optional 607 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate your 608 network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations 609 for which the Control Word is optional." The responses were: 611 o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 613 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 13 615 * Used in Network = 6 617 o Ethernet (Raw Mode) 619 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 14 621 * Used in Network = 7 623 o PPP 625 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 5 627 * Used in Network = 0 629 o HDLC 631 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 4 633 * Used in Network = 0 635 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) 637 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 3 639 * Used in Network = 1 641 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 643 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 5 645 * Used in Network = 1 647 2.7. Open Ended Question 649 Space was provided for user feedback. The following instructions 650 were given: "Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding 651 PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this 652 survey or any network/vendor details you wish to share." Below are 653 the responses, made anonymous. The responses are otherwise provided 654 here verbatim. 656 1. BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be 657 required for PW redundancy purpose) 659 2. Using CV is not required at the moment 661 3. COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple 662 vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV 663 Control Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor 664 platforms. This will provide COMPANY with significant advantages 665 in reduced operational overheads when handling cross-domain 666 faults. Having a uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY 667 multi-vendor network leads to: o Reduced operational cost and 668 complexity o Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible 669 VCCV implementations. o Increased end-end service availability 670 when handing faults. In addition, currently some of COMPANY 671 deployed VCCV traffic flows (on some vendor platforms) are not 672 guaranteed to follow those of the customer's application traffic 673 (a key operational requirement). As a result, the response from 674 the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect the status of the 675 circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the operational 676 status of our networks. An in-band method is highly preferred, 677 with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit Ping 678 using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with 679 each of COMPANY vendors. 681 4. PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW 682 channel. Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW 683 VCCV using BFD is another better option. Interoperability 684 challenges are with Ethernet OAM mechanism. 686 5. We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS 687 ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over 688 IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson 689 Media Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing 690 configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is 691 done for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS 692 encapsulated ATM packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for 693 transporting 2G/3G traffic from network such as Node-B to RNC's 694 over IP/MPLS backbone core network. QoS marking is done for 695 getting guaranteed bandwidth treatment in the core for these MPLS 696 encapsulated ATM packets. In addition to basic L2VPN service 697 configuration, these traffic are routed via MPLS TE tunnels with 698 dedicated path and bandwidth defined to avoid bandwidth related 699 congestion. 701 6. EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV 702 control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. 703 How can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of 704 PW without VCCV in such cases? 706 7. I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience 707 interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space 708 who are only implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who 709 have tailed their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul 710 space and mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space. 711 That's all I've got. 713 3. Security Considerations 715 As this document is an informational report of the PW/VCCV User 716 Implementation Survey results, no protocol security considerations 717 are introduced. 719 The editors took precautions to ensure the validity of the sample and 720 the data. Specifically, only responses with recognizable non-vendor 721 company-affiliated email addresses were accepted. Unrecognizable or 722 personal email addresses would have been contacted to determine their 723 validity, but none were received. Only one response was received 724 from each responding company. If multiple responses from a company 725 had been received, they would have been contacted to determine 726 whether the responses were duplicative or additive. This, however, 727 did not occur. 729 4. IANA Considerations 731 This document has no actions for IANA. 733 5. Acknowledgements 735 We would like to thank the chairs of the PWE3 Working Group for their 736 guidance and review of the Survey questions. We would also like to 737 sincerely thank those listed in Section 2.1. who took the time and 738 effort to participate. 740 6. Appendix 742 The detailed responses are included in this appendix. The respondent 743 contact info has been removed. 745 6.1. Respondent 1 747 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 748 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 750 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 752 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 753 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 754 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 755 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 756 but cannot provide a number. 758 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 423 759 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 760 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 761 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 762 please select all which apply. 764 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 766 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 767 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 769 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 771 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 772 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 774 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 775 Mode) 777 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 779 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 780 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 781 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 783 No Response 785 6.2. Respondent 2 787 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 788 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 790 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 792 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 794 SAToP - RFC 4553 796 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 798 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 799 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 800 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 801 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 802 but cannot provide a number. 804 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 5000 806 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 807 SAToP - RFC 4553 - 50 809 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - 1600 811 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 812 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 813 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 814 please select all which apply. 816 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 817 Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) 819 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 820 Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) 822 CESoPSN - RFC 5086: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 824 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 825 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 827 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 829 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 831 SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping 833 CESoPSN - RFC 5086: LSP Ping 835 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 836 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 838 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 839 Mode) 841 Used in Network: No Response 843 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 844 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 845 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 847 I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience interop 848 challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space who are only 849 implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who have tailed their 850 MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul space and mandatory CW 851 have been known to fall into this space. That's all I've got. 853 6.3. Respondent 3 854 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 855 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 857 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 859 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 861 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 863 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 865 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 866 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 867 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 868 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 869 but cannot provide a number. 871 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 800 873 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50 875 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2 877 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2 879 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 880 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 881 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 882 please select all which apply. 884 No Response 886 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 887 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 889 No Response 891 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 892 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 894 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 895 Mode) 897 Used in Network: No Response 899 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 900 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 901 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 903 No Response 905 6.4. Respondent 4 907 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 908 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 910 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 912 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 914 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 915 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 916 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 917 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 918 but cannot provide a number. 920 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 922 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 200 924 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 925 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 926 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 927 please select all which apply. 929 No Response 931 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 932 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 934 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 936 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 938 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 939 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 941 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 942 Mode) 944 Used in Network: No Response 946 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 947 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 948 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 950 EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV 951 control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. How 952 can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of PW 953 without VCCV in such cases? 955 6.5. Respondent 5 957 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 958 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 960 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 962 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 964 PPP - RFC 4618 966 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 968 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 970 Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap 972 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 973 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 974 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 975 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 976 but cannot provide a number. 978 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 4000 980 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 981 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 982 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 983 please select all which apply. 985 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 986 Label (Type 2) 988 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 989 Label (Type 2) 991 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 992 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 994 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 996 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 997 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 999 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1000 Mode) 1002 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1004 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1005 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1006 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1008 No Response 1010 6.6. Respondent 6 1012 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1013 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1015 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1017 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1019 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1020 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1021 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1022 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1023 but cannot provide a number. 1025 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+ 1027 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 500 1029 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1030 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1031 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1032 please select all which apply. 1034 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1036 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1038 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1039 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1041 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1043 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1045 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1046 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1048 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1049 Mode) 1051 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1053 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1054 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1055 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1057 No Response 1059 6.7. Respondent 7 1061 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1062 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1064 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1066 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1068 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1069 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1070 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1071 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1072 but cannot provide a number. 1074 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 20 1076 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 100 1078 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1079 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1080 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1081 please select all which apply. 1083 No Response 1085 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1086 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1088 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1090 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1092 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1093 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1095 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1096 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1098 Used in Network: No Response 1100 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1101 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1102 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1104 We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS 1105 ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over IP/ 1106 MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson Media 1107 Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing 1108 configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is done 1109 for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM 1110 packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for transporting 2G/3G traffic 1111 from network such as Node-B to RNC's over IP/MPLS backbone core 1112 network. QoS marking is done for getting guaranteed bandwidth 1113 treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM packets. In 1114 addition to basic L2VPN service configuration, these traffic are 1115 routed via MPLS TE tunnels with dedicated path and bandwidth defined 1116 to avoid bandwidth related congestion. 1118 6.8. Respondent 8 1120 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1121 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1123 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1125 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 1127 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 1129 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1130 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1131 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1132 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1133 but cannot provide a number. 1135 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use 1137 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 - In-Use 1139 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - In-Use 1141 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1142 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1143 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1144 please select all which apply. 1146 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1148 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: Router Alert Label (Type 2) 1150 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1151 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1153 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1155 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1157 TDMoIP - RFC 5087: LSP Ping 1159 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1160 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1162 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell 1163 Mode) 1165 Used in Network: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1167 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1168 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1169 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1171 PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW channel. 1172 Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW VCCV using 1173 BFD is another better option. Interoperability challenges are with 1174 Ethernet OAM mechanism. 1176 6.9. Respondent 9 1178 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1179 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1181 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1183 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1185 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1186 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1187 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1188 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1189 but cannot provide a number. 1191 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 19385 1193 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 15757 1195 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1196 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1197 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1198 please select all which apply. 1200 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1) 1202 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1203 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1205 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1207 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1208 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1210 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1211 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1213 Used in Network: No Response 1215 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1216 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1217 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1219 No Response 1221 6.10. Respondent 10 1223 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1224 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1226 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1228 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1229 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1230 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1231 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1232 but cannot provide a number. 1234 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 325 1235 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1236 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1237 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1238 please select all which apply. 1240 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1242 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1243 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1245 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1247 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1248 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1250 Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response 1252 Used in Network: No Response 1254 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1255 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1256 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1258 No Response 1260 6.11. Respondent 11 1262 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1263 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1265 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1267 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1269 PPP - RFC 4618 HDLC - RFC 4618 1271 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1273 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1274 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1275 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1276 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1277 but cannot provide a number. 1279 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 2000 1281 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1282 PPP - RFC 4618 - 500 1284 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 200 1286 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1287 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1288 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1289 please select all which apply. 1291 No Response 1293 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1294 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1296 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1298 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1300 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1302 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1303 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1305 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1306 Mode), PPP, HDLC 1308 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 1310 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1311 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1312 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1314 No Response 1316 6.12. Respondent 12 1318 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1319 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1321 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1323 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1324 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1325 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1326 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1327 but cannot provide a number. 1329 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50000 1330 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1331 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1332 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1333 please select all which apply. 1335 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1336 Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1338 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1339 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1341 No Response 1343 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1344 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1346 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1347 Mode) 1349 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1351 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1352 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1353 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1355 No Response 1357 6.13. Respondent 13 1359 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1360 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1362 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1364 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1366 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1368 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1369 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1370 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1371 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1372 but cannot provide a number. 1374 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 3 1376 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 10-20 1377 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 3 1379 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1380 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1381 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1382 please select all which apply. 1384 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry 1385 (Type 3) 1387 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry (Type 1388 3) 1390 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry 1391 (Type 3) 1393 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1394 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1396 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1398 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1400 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1402 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1403 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1405 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1406 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1408 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), Frame 1409 Relay (Port Mode) 1411 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1412 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1413 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1415 No Response 1417 6.14. Respondent 14 1419 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1420 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1422 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1424 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1425 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1426 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1427 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1428 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1429 but cannot provide a number. 1431 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 150 1433 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1435 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1436 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1437 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1438 please select all which apply. 1440 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1441 Label (Type 2) 1443 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1444 Label (Type 2) 1446 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1447 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1449 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1451 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1453 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1454 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1456 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1457 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode) 1459 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1461 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1462 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1463 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1465 No Response 1467 6.15. Respondent 15 1469 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1470 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1472 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1473 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1475 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1477 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1479 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1480 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1481 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1482 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1483 but cannot provide a number. 1485 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 20,000 1487 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 1489 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000 1491 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 20,000 1493 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1494 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1495 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1496 please select all which apply. 1498 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1500 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1502 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1504 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1506 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1507 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1509 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1511 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1513 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1515 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1517 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1518 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1520 Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response 1521 Used in Network: No Response 1523 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1524 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1525 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1527 COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple 1528 vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV Control 1529 Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor platforms. This 1530 will provide COMPANY with significant advantages in reduced 1531 operational overheads when handling cross-domain faults. Having a 1532 uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY multi-vendor network 1533 leads to: o Reduced operational cost and complexity o Reduced OSS 1534 development to coordinate incompatible VCCV implementations. o 1535 Increased end-end service availability when handing faults. In 1536 addition, currently some of COMPANY deployed VCCV traffic flows (on 1537 some vendor platforms) are not guaranteed to follow those of the 1538 customer's application traffic (a key operational requirement). As a 1539 result, the response from the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect 1540 the status of the circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the 1541 operational status of our networks. An in-band method is highly 1542 preferred, with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit 1543 Ping using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with 1544 each of COMPANY vendors. 1546 6.16. Respondent 16 1548 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1549 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1551 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1553 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1555 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1556 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1557 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1558 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1559 but cannot provide a number. 1561 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1563 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1565 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1566 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1567 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1568 please select all which apply. 1570 No Response 1572 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1573 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1575 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1577 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1579 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1580 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1582 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1583 Mode) 1585 Used in Network: No Response 1587 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1588 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1589 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1591 Using CV is not required at the moment 1593 6.17. Respondent 17 1595 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1596 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1598 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1600 SAToP - RFC 4553 1602 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 1604 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1606 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1608 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1610 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 1612 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 1613 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1614 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1615 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1616 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1617 but cannot provide a number. 1619 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k 1621 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use 1623 SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k 1625 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k 1627 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k 1629 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k 1631 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k 1633 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - >20k 1635 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - >20k 1637 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1638 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1639 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1640 please select all which apply. 1642 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1644 SAToP - RFC 4553: Control Word (Type 1) 1646 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1) 1648 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1) 1650 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1) 1652 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1) 1654 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1655 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1657 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1659 SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping 1660 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1662 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1664 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1666 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1668 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1669 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1671 Supported by Network/Equipment: ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1673 Used in Network: No Response 1675 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1676 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1677 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1679 BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be 1680 required for PW redundancy purpose) 1682 7. Informative References 1684 [RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, 1685 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS 1686 Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006. 1688 [RFC4618] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis, 1689 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level 1690 Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618, 1691 September 2006. 1693 [RFC4717] Martini, L., Jayakumar, J., Bocci, M., El-Aawar, N., 1694 Brayley, J., and G. Koleyni, "Encapsulation Methods for 1695 Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS 1696 Networks", RFC 4717, December 2006. 1698 [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual 1699 Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control 1700 Channel for Pseudowires", December 2007. 1702 [RFC6307] Black, D., Dunbar, L., Roth, M., and R. Solomon, 1703 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel 1704 Traffic over MPLS Networks", RFC 6307, April 2012. 1706 Authors' Addresses 1707 Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno (editor) 1708 Verizon Communications Inc 1709 400 International Pkwy 1710 Richardson, TX 75081 1711 US 1713 Email: nick.delregno@verizon.com 1715 Andrew G. Malis (editor) 1716 Verizon Communications Inc 1717 60 Sylvan Road 1718 Waltham, MA 02451 1719 US 1721 Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com