Subject: about draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-00.txt

From: "Claude Kawa"<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:47:43 -0400

draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-00.txt is contained in
draft-kamapabhava-fr-pwe3.01 which was revised by taking into account the
comments made during the last few month on the initial version of the draft.

I would like to suggest that we focus on draft-kamapabhava-fr-pwe3.01 to
improve it and to address what is missing or need to change so that we can
produce a new more complete version, hopefully a Working Group draft, before
the next IETF meeting.

Can we have agreement on this suggestion?

Claude Kawa

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:56:22 -0400

As a co-author on both drafts (even if Luca did remove my name by mistake 
:-), I would also like to second Claude's 
message.  draft-kamapabhava-fr-pwe3-01 is a superset of 
draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-00, and the two interoperate.  The major 
difference is the kamapabhava also contains some new optional capabilities, 
such as fragmentation and port mode.

Thanks,
Andy

-------

At 4/16/2002 08:47 PM -0400, Claude Kawa wrote:

>produce a new more complete version, hopefully a Working Group draft, 
>before the next IETF meeting.
>

---

From: "W. Mark Townsley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:21:02 +0200

> Claude Kawa wrote:

Since this draft specifically addresses encapsulation within the PW, I think the
more proper order of events is to agree on the contents in the general Protocol
Layering Document before moving forward with a PW-specific document. To do
otherwise is placing the cart a bit before the horse.

---

From: "Claude Kawa"<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:03:39 -0400

With fragmentation done at the PE we have a general PE capability to support
various types of frame relay devices (including existing devices) behind a
PE without constraining them to support and additional frame relay feature
such as FRF.12 for fragmentation; not every frame relay user or network
device supports per FRF.12.

claude 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:35 AM
To: W. Mark Townsley
Cc: Andrew G. Malis; [email-masked]; Kawa, Claude [CAR:CS49:EXCH]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] about draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-00.txt

Mark,

It could be, but it depends on what you're connecting.  If you're 
presenting a UNI interface, then FRF.12 may be available in the 
DTE.  FRF.12 would typically not be available on a NNI interface.  Also 
note that the fragmentation in kamapabhava is the same as that used by 
FRF.12, so it's really not something that was invented for this 
purpose.  It's also very efficient, just using two otherwise unused bits in 
the header.

Cheers,
Andy

---------

At 4/17/2002 02:10 PM +0200, W. Mark Townsley wrote:

>"Andrew G. Malis" wrote:
>Andy, I thought you agreed that fragmentation could be handled for FR in 
>the NSP
>using existing FR SAR methods, rather than inventing a new FR-PW-specific 
>method
>as described in this draft.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andy
> >
> > -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: "Claude Kawa"<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:54:32 -0400

This is an en bloc reply to George, Mark and Stewart emails trying to
summarize our understanding:

1-It is suggested to do the fragmentation outside the PW, this means that
the FR/PW header (Fig 3 of draft kamapabhava.01) will not show the
fragmentation bits.

2-The fragmentation can be done in the PE, this implies that we need
protocol control information to keep track of the different fragments not
visible in the FR/PW header but they will be carried/hidden in the payload
of the FR/PW packet (Fig 2 of the draf kama...).

Is this a correct summary? 

Thanks

Claude Kawa

---

From: "Claude Kawa"<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:06:28 -0400

George 

About the control word for other PSN, in particular IP and L2TPv3 the draft
is not fully developed. I would like to solicit additional help. I know Mark
has a draft on FR/L2TPv3.

 One question is whether we always include the control word for the
different PSN even if we do not use some of the fields.

About keeping the DLCI we have the port mode doing that. It keeps the whole
frame as it is.

Lastly  if we do fragmentation outside the PW, we can use FRF.12 between
PEs. Let us see what others think about this change of the fragmentation
capability.

Claude

-----Original Message-----
From: George Wilkie [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:49 AM
To: Kawa, Claude [CAR:CS49:EXCH]
Cc: 'Andrew G. Malis'; W. Mark Townsley; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [PWE3] about draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-00.txt

Hi Claude,

A question on the FRoPW control word.
The doc appears to require the use of the FRoPW control word for all types
of
PSN.
I understand the need for MPLS, not clear to me for other PSNs, e.g. L2TPv3.
L2TPv3 can do without the control word since it has its own sequencing
capability and IP has no need for length field.
The DLCI can remain on the frame to carry the FBDC bits and avoid
inefficient
copy out/in.
Pure FRF.12 can be used for fragmentation.

Cheers.