idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits47486/draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.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 (August 21, 2013) is 3195 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: February 22, 2014 August 21, 2013 7 The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) 8 Implementation Survey Results 9 draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02 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 Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior, and 16 to discriminate Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) 17 from Pseudowire (PW) packets. However, some encapsulations treat the 18 Control Word as optional. As a result, implementations of the CW, 19 for encapsulations for which it is optional, vary by equipment 20 manufacturer, equipment model and service provider network. 21 Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports 22 three Control Channel (CC) types and multiple Connectivity 23 Verification (CV) Types. This flexibility has led to reports of 24 interoperability issues within deployed networks and associated 25 drafts to attempt to remedy the situation. This survey of the PW/ 26 VCCV user community was conducted to determine implementation trends. 27 The survey and results is presented herein. 29 Status of This Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 22, 2014. 46 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 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 Pseudowire (PW) Control 104 Word is required. However, there are several encapsulations for 105 which the Control Word is optional, and this optionality has been 106 seen in practice to possibly introduce interoperability concerns 107 between 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, draft-ietf-pwe3-fc- 173 encap (now [RFC6307]), which were implemented by the respondent. 174 These included: 176 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 178 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 180 o SAToP - RFC 4553 182 o PPP - RFC 4618 184 o HDLC - RFC 4618 186 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 193 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 195 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 197 o CEP - RFC 4842 199 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 201 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 203 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] 205 - Approximately how many pseudowires of each type were deployed. 206 Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy, could 207 just respond "In-Use" instead. 209 - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicated 210 which Control Channel [RFC5085] was in use (see Section 1 for a 211 discussion of these Control Channels). The options listed were: 213 o Control Word (Type 1) 215 o Router Alert Label (Type 2) 217 o TTL Expiry (Type 3) 219 - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate 220 which Connectivity Verification types [RFC5085] were in use. The 221 options were: 223 o Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Ping 225 o Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping 227 - For each encapsulation type for which the use of the Control Word 228 is optional, the respondents could indicated the encapsulation for 229 which Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether it 230 was in use in the network. The encapsulations listed were: 232 o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 234 o Ethernet (Raw Mode) 235 o PPP 237 o HDLC 239 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) 241 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 243 - Finally, a freeform entry was provided for the respondent to 244 provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV 245 interoperability challenges, the survey or any network/vendor details 246 they wished to share. 248 1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights 250 There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity 251 requirements in Section 3. The responding companies are listed below 252 in Section 2.1. 254 2. Survey Results 256 2.1. Respondents 258 The following companies, listed here alphabetically as received in 259 the survey responses, participated in the PW/VCCV Implementation 260 Survey. Responses were only solicited from non-vendors (users and 261 service providers), and no vendors responded (although if they had, 262 their response would not have been included). The data provided has 263 been aggregated. No specific company's response will be detailed 264 herein. 266 o AboveNet 268 o AMS-IX 270 o Bright House Networks 272 o Cox Communications 274 o Deutsche Telekom AG 276 o Easynet Global Services 278 o France Telecom Orange 280 o Internet Solution 282 o MTN South Africa 283 o OJSC MegaFon 285 o Superonline 287 o Telecom New Zealand 289 o Telstra Corporation 291 o Time Warner Cable 293 o Tinet 295 o Verizon 297 o Wipro Technologies 299 2.2. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented 301 The following question was asked: "In your network in general, across 302 all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your 303 company has implemented." Of all responses, the following list shows 304 the percentage of responses for each encapsulation: 306 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5% 308 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4% 310 o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8% 312 o PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8% 314 o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.9% 316 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 17.6% 318 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 41.2% 320 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9% 322 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6% 324 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9% 326 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0% 328 o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0% 330 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8% 331 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8% 333 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] = 334 5.9% 336 2.3. Number of Pseudowires Deployed 338 The following question was asked: "Approximately how many pseudowires 339 are deployed of each encapsulation type. Note, this should be the 340 number of pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned 341 to do so." The following list shows the number of pseudowires in use 342 for each encapsulation: 344 o Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861 346 o Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231 348 o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050 350 o PPP - RFC 4618 = 500 352 o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0 354 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002 356 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959 358 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000 360 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103 362 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 364 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0 366 o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0 368 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600 370 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000 372 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] = 0 374 In the above responses, on several occasions the response was in the 375 form of "> XXXXX" where the response indicated a number greater than 376 the one provided. Where applicable, the number itself was used in 377 the sums above. For example, ">20K" and "20K+" yielded 20K. 379 Additionally, the following encapsulations were listed as "In-Use" 380 with no quantity provided: 382 o Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses 384 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response 386 o TDMoIP: 1 Response 388 2.4. VCCV Control Channel In Use 390 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV 391 Control Channel is used for each encapsulation type. Understanding 392 that users may have different networks with varying implementations, 393 for your network in general, please select all which apply." The 394 numbers below indicate the number of responses. The responses were: 396 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 398 * Control Word (Type 1) = 7 400 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3 402 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3 404 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 406 * Control Word (Type 1) = 8 408 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4 410 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4 412 o SAToP - RFC 4553 414 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 416 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 418 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 420 o PPP - RFC 4618 422 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 424 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 426 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 428 o HDLC - RFC 4618 430 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 432 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 434 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 436 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 438 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 440 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 442 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 444 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 446 * Control Word (Type 1) = 3 448 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 450 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2 452 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 454 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 456 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 458 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 460 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 462 * Control Word (Type 1) = 1 464 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 466 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1 468 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 470 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 472 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1 474 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 476 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 478 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 480 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 482 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 484 o CEP - RFC 4842 486 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 488 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 490 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 492 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 494 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 496 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 498 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1 500 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 502 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 504 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 506 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 508 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] 510 * Control Word (Type 1) = 0 512 * Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0 514 * TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0 516 2.5. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use 518 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV 519 Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each 520 encapsulation type." Note that BFD was not one of the choices. The 521 responses were as follows: 523 o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 524 * ICMP Ping = 5 526 * LSP Ping = 11 528 o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 530 * ICMP Ping = 6 532 * LSP Ping = 11 534 o SAToP - RFC 4553 536 * ICMP Ping = 0 538 * LSP Ping = 2 540 o PPP - RFC 4618 542 * ICMP Ping = 0 544 * LSP Ping = 0 546 o HDLC - RFC 4618 548 * ICMP Ping = 0 550 * LSP Ping = 0 552 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 554 * ICMP Ping = 0 556 * LSP Ping = 1 558 o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 560 * ICMP Ping = 2 562 * LSP Ping = 5 564 o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 566 * ICMP Ping = 0 568 * LSP Ping = 1 570 o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 571 * ICMP Ping = 0 573 * LSP Ping = 3 575 o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 577 * ICMP Ping = 0 579 * LSP Ping = 1 581 o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 583 * ICMP Ping = 0 585 * LSP Ping = 0 587 o CEP - RFC 4842 589 * ICMP Ping = 0 591 * LSP Ping = 0 593 o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 595 * ICMP Ping = 0 597 * LSP Ping = 1 599 o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 601 * ICMP Ping = 0 603 * LSP Ping = 1 605 o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] 607 * ICMP Ping = 0 609 * LSP Ping = 0 611 2.6. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is Optional 613 The following instructions were given: "Please indicate your 614 network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations 615 for which the Control Word is optional." The responses were: 617 o Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 618 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 13 620 * Used in Network = 6 622 o Ethernet (Raw Mode) 624 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 14 626 * Used in Network = 7 628 o PPP 630 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 5 632 * Used in Network = 0 634 o HDLC 636 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 4 638 * Used in Network = 0 640 o Frame Relay (Port Mode) 642 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 3 644 * Used in Network = 1 646 o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 648 * Supported by Network/Equipment = 5 650 * Used in Network = 1 652 2.7. Open Ended Question 654 Space was provided for user feedback. The following instructions 655 were given: "Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding 656 PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this 657 survey or any network/vendor details you wish to share." Below are 658 the responses, made anonymous. The responses are otherwise provided 659 here verbatim. 661 1. BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be 662 required for PW redundancy purpose) 664 2. Using CV is not required at the moment 665 3. COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple 666 vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV 667 Control Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor 668 platforms. This will provide COMPANY with significant advantages 669 in reduced operational overheads when handling cross-domain 670 faults. Having a uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY 671 multi-vendor network leads to: o Reduced operational cost and 672 complexity o Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible 673 VCCV implementations. o Increased end-end service availability 674 when handing faults. In addition, currently some of COMPANY 675 deployed VCCV traffic flows (on some vendor platforms) are not 676 guaranteed to follow those of the customer's application traffic 677 (a key operational requirement). As a result, the response from 678 the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect the status of the 679 circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the operational 680 status of our networks. An in-band method is highly preferred, 681 with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit Ping 682 using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with 683 each of COMPANY vendors. 685 4. PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW 686 channel. Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW 687 VCCV using BFD is another better option. Interoperability 688 challenges are with Ethernet OAM mechanism. 690 5. We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS 691 ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over 692 IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson 693 Media Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing 694 configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is 695 done for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS 696 encapsulated ATM packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for 697 transporting 2G/3G traffic from network such as Node-B to RNC's 698 over IP/MPLS backbone core network. QoS marking is done for 699 getting guaranteed bandwidth treatment in the core for these MPLS 700 encapsulated ATM packets. In addition to basic L2VPN service 701 configuration, these traffic are routed via MPLS TE tunnels with 702 dedicated path and bandwidth defined to avoid bandwidth related 703 congestion. 705 6. EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV 706 control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. 707 How can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of 708 PW without VCCV in such cases? 710 7. I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience 711 interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space 712 who are only implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who 713 have tailed their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul 714 space and mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space. 715 That's all I've got. 717 3. Security Considerations 719 As this document is an informational report of the PW/VCCV User 720 Implementation Survey results, no protocol security considerations 721 are introduced. 723 The editors took precautions to ensure the validity of the sample and 724 the data. Specifically, only responses with recognizable non-vendor 725 company-affiliated email addresses were accepted. Unrecognizable or 726 personal email addresses would have been contacted to determine their 727 validity, but none were received. Only one response was received 728 from each responding company. If multiple responses from a company 729 had been received, they would have been contacted to determine 730 whether the responses were duplicative or additive. This, however, 731 did not occur. 733 4. IANA Considerations 735 This document has no actions for IANA. 737 5. Acknowledgements 739 We would like to thank the chairs of the PWE3 Working Group for their 740 guidance and review of the Survey questions. We would also like to 741 sincerely thank those listed in Section 2.1. who took the time and 742 effort to participate. 744 6. Appendix 746 The detailed responses are included in this appendix. The respondent 747 contact info has been removed. 749 6.1. Respondent 1 751 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 752 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 754 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 756 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 757 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 758 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 759 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 760 but cannot provide a number. 762 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 423 764 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 765 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 766 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 767 please select all which apply. 769 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 771 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 772 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 774 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 776 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 777 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 779 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 780 Mode) 782 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 784 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 785 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 786 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 788 No Response 790 6.2. Respondent 2 792 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 793 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 795 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 797 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 799 SAToP - RFC 4553 801 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 803 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 804 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 805 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 806 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 807 but cannot provide a number. 809 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 5000 810 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 812 SAToP - RFC 4553 - 50 814 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - 1600 816 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 817 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 818 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 819 please select all which apply. 821 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 822 Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) 824 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 825 Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) 827 CESoPSN - RFC 5086: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 829 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 830 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 832 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 834 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 836 SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping 838 CESoPSN - RFC 5086: LSP Ping 840 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 841 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 843 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 844 Mode) 846 Used in Network: No Response 848 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 849 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 850 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 852 I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience interop 853 challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space who are only 854 implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who have tailed their 855 MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul space and mandatory CW 856 have been known to fall into this space. That's all I've got. 858 6.3. Respondent 3 860 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 861 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 863 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 865 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 867 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 869 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 871 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 872 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 873 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 874 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 875 but cannot provide a number. 877 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 800 879 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50 881 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2 883 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2 885 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 886 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 887 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 888 please select all which apply. 890 No Response 892 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 893 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 895 No Response 897 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 898 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 900 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 901 Mode) 903 Used in Network: No Response 904 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 905 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 906 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 908 No Response 910 6.4. Respondent 4 912 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 913 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 915 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 917 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 919 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 920 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 921 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 922 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 923 but cannot provide a number. 925 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 927 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 200 929 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 930 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 931 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 932 please select all which apply. 934 No Response 936 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 937 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 939 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 941 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 943 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 944 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 946 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 947 Mode) 949 Used in Network: No Response 950 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 951 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 952 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 954 EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV 955 control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. How 956 can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of PW 957 without VCCV in such cases? 959 6.5. Respondent 5 961 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 962 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 964 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 966 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 968 PPP - RFC 4618 970 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 972 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 974 Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] 976 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 977 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 978 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 979 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 980 but cannot provide a number. 982 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 4000 984 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 985 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 986 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 987 please select all which apply. 989 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 990 Label (Type 2) 992 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 993 Label (Type 2) 995 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 996 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 998 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1000 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1001 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1003 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1004 Mode) 1006 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1008 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1009 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1010 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1012 No Response 1014 6.6. Respondent 6 1016 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1017 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1019 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1021 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1023 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1024 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1025 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1026 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1027 but cannot provide a number. 1029 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+ 1031 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 500 1033 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1034 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1035 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1036 please select all which apply. 1038 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1040 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1042 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1043 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1045 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1046 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1048 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1049 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1051 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1052 Mode) 1054 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1056 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1057 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1058 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1060 No Response 1062 6.7. Respondent 7 1064 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1065 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1067 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1069 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1071 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1072 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1073 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1074 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1075 but cannot provide a number. 1077 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 20 1079 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 100 1081 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1082 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1083 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1084 please select all which apply. 1086 No Response 1088 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1089 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1091 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1093 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1094 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1095 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1097 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1098 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1100 Used in Network: No Response 1102 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1103 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1104 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1106 We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS 1107 ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over IP/ 1108 MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson Media 1109 Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing 1110 configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is done 1111 for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM 1112 packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for transporting 2G/3G traffic 1113 from network such as Node-B to RNC's over IP/MPLS backbone core 1114 network. QoS marking is done for getting guaranteed bandwidth 1115 treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM packets. In 1116 addition to basic L2VPN service configuration, these traffic are 1117 routed via MPLS TE tunnels with dedicated path and bandwidth defined 1118 to avoid bandwidth related congestion. 1120 6.8. Respondent 8 1122 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1123 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1125 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1127 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 1129 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 1131 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1132 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1133 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1134 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1135 but cannot provide a number. 1137 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use 1139 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 - In-Use 1141 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - In-Use 1142 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1143 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1144 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1145 please select all which apply. 1147 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1149 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: Router Alert Label (Type 2) 1151 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1152 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1154 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1156 ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1158 TDMoIP - RFC 5087: LSP Ping 1160 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1161 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1163 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell 1164 Mode) 1166 Used in Network: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1168 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1169 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1170 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1172 PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW channel. 1173 Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW VCCV using 1174 BFD is another better option. Interoperability challenges are with 1175 Ethernet OAM mechanism. 1177 6.9. Respondent 9 1179 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1180 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1182 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1184 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 1236 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1237 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1238 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1239 please select all which apply. 1241 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1243 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1244 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1246 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1248 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1249 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1251 Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response 1253 Used in Network: No Response 1255 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1256 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1257 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1259 No Response 1261 6.11. Respondent 11 1263 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1264 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1266 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1268 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1270 PPP - RFC 4618 HDLC - RFC 4618 1272 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1274 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1275 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1276 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1277 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1278 but cannot provide a number. 1280 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 2000 1281 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1283 PPP - RFC 4618 - 500 1285 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 200 1287 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1288 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1289 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1290 please select all which apply. 1292 No Response 1294 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1295 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1297 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1299 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1301 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1303 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1304 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1306 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1307 Mode), PPP, HDLC 1309 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode) 1311 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1312 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1313 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1315 No Response 1317 6.12. Respondent 12 1319 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1320 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1322 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1324 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1325 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1326 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1327 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1328 but cannot provide a number. 1330 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50000 1332 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1333 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1334 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1335 please select all which apply. 1337 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1338 Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1340 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1341 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1343 No Response 1345 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1346 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1348 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1349 Mode) 1351 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1353 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1354 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1355 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1357 No Response 1359 6.13. Respondent 13 1361 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1362 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1364 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1366 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1368 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1370 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1371 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1372 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1373 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1374 but cannot provide a number. 1376 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 3 1377 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 10-20 1379 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 3 1381 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1382 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1383 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1384 please select all which apply. 1386 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry 1387 (Type 3) 1389 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry (Type 1390 3) 1392 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry 1393 (Type 3) 1395 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1396 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1398 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1400 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1402 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1404 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1405 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1407 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1408 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1410 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), Frame 1411 Relay (Port Mode) 1413 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1414 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1415 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1417 No Response 1419 6.14. Respondent 14 1421 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1422 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1424 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1425 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1427 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1428 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1429 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1430 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1431 but cannot provide a number. 1433 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 150 1435 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1437 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1438 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1439 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1440 please select all which apply. 1442 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1443 Label (Type 2) 1445 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert 1446 Label (Type 2) 1448 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1449 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1451 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1453 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1455 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1456 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1458 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1459 Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode) 1461 Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode) 1463 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1464 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1465 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1467 No Response 1469 6.15. Respondent 15 1471 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1472 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1474 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1476 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1478 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1480 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1482 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1483 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1484 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1485 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1486 but cannot provide a number. 1488 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 20,000 1490 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000 1492 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000 1494 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 20,000 1496 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1497 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1498 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1499 please select all which apply. 1501 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1503 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1505 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1507 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: TTL Expiry (Type 3) 1509 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1510 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1512 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1514 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1516 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1518 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1520 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1521 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1523 Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response 1525 Used in Network: No Response 1527 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1528 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1529 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1531 COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple 1532 vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV Control 1533 Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor platforms. This 1534 will provide COMPANY with significant advantages in reduced 1535 operational overheads when handling cross-domain faults. Having a 1536 uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY multi-vendor network 1537 leads to: o Reduced operational cost and complexity o Reduced OSS 1538 development to coordinate incompatible VCCV implementations. o 1539 Increased end-end service availability when handing faults. In 1540 addition, currently some of COMPANY deployed VCCV traffic flows (on 1541 some vendor platforms) are not guaranteed to follow those of the 1542 customer's application traffic (a key operational requirement). As a 1543 result, the response from the circuit ping cannot faithfully reflect 1544 the status of the circuit. This leads to ambiguity regarding the 1545 operational status of our networks. An in-band method is highly 1546 preferred, with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV Circuit 1547 Ping using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued with 1548 each of COMPANY vendors. 1550 6.16. Respondent 16 1552 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1553 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1555 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1557 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 1559 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1560 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1561 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1562 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1563 but cannot provide a number. 1565 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1567 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100 1569 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1570 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1571 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1572 please select all which apply. 1574 No Response 1576 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1577 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1579 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1581 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping 1583 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1584 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1586 Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw 1587 Mode) 1589 Used in Network: No Response 1591 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1592 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1593 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1595 Using CV is not required at the moment 1597 6.17. Respondent 17 1599 2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate 1600 which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented. 1602 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 1604 SAToP - RFC 4553 1606 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 1608 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 1610 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1612 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 1614 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 1616 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 1617 3. Approximately how many pseudowires are deployed of each 1618 encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires 1619 in service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, 1620 please indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using 1621 but cannot provide a number. 1623 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k 1625 Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use 1627 SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k 1629 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k 1631 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k 1633 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k 1635 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k 1637 CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - >20k 1639 TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - >20k 1641 4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each 1642 encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different 1643 networks with varying implementations, for your network in general, 1644 please select all which apply. 1646 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1) 1648 SAToP - RFC 4553: Control Word (Type 1) 1650 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1) 1652 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1) 1654 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1) 1656 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1) 1658 5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are 1659 used in your networks for each encapsulation type. 1661 Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping 1663 SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping 1664 Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1666 Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping 1668 ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1670 ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping 1672 6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control 1673 Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional. 1675 Supported by Network/Equipment: ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) 1677 Used in Network: No Response 1679 7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and 1680 VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or 1681 any network/vendor details you wish to share. 1683 BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be 1684 required for PW redundancy purpose) 1686 7. Informative References 1688 [RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, 1689 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS 1690 Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006. 1692 [RFC4618] Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis, 1693 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level 1694 Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618, 1695 September 2006. 1697 [RFC4717] Martini, L., Jayakumar, J., Bocci, M., El-Aawar, N., 1698 Brayley, J., and G. Koleyni, "Encapsulation Methods for 1699 Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS 1700 Networks", RFC 4717, December 2006. 1702 [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual 1703 Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control 1704 Channel for Pseudowires", December 2007. 1706 [RFC6307] Black, D., Dunbar, L., Roth, M., and R. Solomon, 1707 "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel 1708 Traffic over MPLS Networks", RFC 6307, April 2012. 1710 Authors' Addresses 1711 Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno (editor) 1712 Verizon Communications Inc 1713 400 International Pkwy 1714 Richardson, TX 75081 1715 US 1717 Email: nick.delregno@verizon.com 1719 Andrew G. Malis (editor) 1720 Verizon Communications Inc 1721 60 Sylvan Road 1722 Waltham, MA 02451 1723 US 1725 Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com