The Pseudowire (PW)
& Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation
Survey Results
Verizon Communications Inc
400 International Pkwy
Richardson
TX
75081
US
nick.delregno@verizon.com
Most Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate
the use of the Control Word (CW) in order to better emulate the services
for which the encapsulations have been defined. However, some
encapulations treat the Control Word as optional. As a result,
implementations of the CW, for encapsulations for which it is optional,
vary by equipment manufacturer, equipment model and service provider
network. Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
supports three Control Channel (CC) types and multiple Connectivity
Verification (CV) Types. This flexibility has led to reports of
interoperability issues within deployed networks and associated drafts
to attempt to remedy the situation. This survey of the PW/VCCV user
community was conducted to determine implementation trends. The survey
and results is presented herein.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
The PWE3 working group has defined many encapsulations of various
Layer 1 and Layer 2 links. Within these encapsulations, there are often
several modes of encapsulation which have differing requirements in
order to fully emulate the service. As such, the use of the PWE3 Control
Word is mandated in many of the encapsulations, but not all. This can
present interoperability issues related to A) Control Word use and B)
VCCV Control Channel negotiation in mixed implementation
environments.
The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently
optional are:
Ethernet Tagged Mode
Ethernet Raw Mode
PPP
HDLC
Frame Relay Port Mode
ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
defines three Control Channel
types for MPLS PW's: Type 1, using the Pseudowire Control Word, Type 2,
using the Router Alert Label, and Type 3, using TTL Expiration (e.g.
MPLS PW Label with TTL == 1). While Type 2 (RA Label) is indicated as
being "the preferred mode of VCCV operation when the Control Word is not
present," RFC 5085 does not indicate a mandatory Control Channel to
ensure interoperable implementations. The closest it comes to mandating
a control channel is the requirement to support Type 1 (Control Word)
whenever the control word is present. As such, the three options yield
seven implementation permutations (assuming you have to support at least
one Control Channel type to provide VCCV). Due to these permuations,
interoperability challenges have been identified by several VCCV
users.
In order to assess the best approach to address the observed
interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit
feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding implementation.
This document presents the survey and the information returned by the
user community who participated.
Per the direction of the PWE3 Working Group chairs, a survey was
created to sample the nature of implementations of Pseudowires, with
specific emphasis on Control Word usage, and VCCV, with emphasis on
Control Channel and Control Type usage. The survey consisted of a
series of questions based on direction of the WG chairs and the survey
opened to the public on November 4, 2010. The URL for the survey (now
closed) was http://www.surveymonkey.com/pwe3/. The survey ran from
November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011.
The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following
information about user implementations:
- Responding Organziation. No provisions were made for anonymity.
All responses required a valid email address in order to validate the
survey response.
- Of the various encapsulations (and options therein) known at the
time, including the WG draft for Fiber Channel), which were
implemented b the respondent. These included:
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
SAToP - RFC 4553
PPP - RFC 4618
HDLC - RFC 4618
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
CEP - RFC 4842
CESoPSN - RFC 5086
TDMoIP - RFC 5087
Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap
- Approximately how many Pseudowires of each type were
deployed. Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy,
could just respond "In-Use" instead.
- For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could
indicated which Control Channel was in use. The options listed
were:
Control Word (Type 1)
Router Alert Label (Type 2)
TTL Expiry (Type 3)
- For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could
indicate which Connectivity Verification types were in use. The
options were:
ICMP Ping
LSP Ping
- For each encapsulation type for which the use of the
Control Word is optional, the respondents could indicated the encaps
for which Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether
it was in use in the network. The encaps listed were:
Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
Ethernet (Raw Mode)
PPP
HDLC
Frame Relay (Port Mode)
ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
- Finally, a freeform entry was provided for the respondent
to provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV
interoperability challenges, the survey or any network/vendor details
they wished to share.
There were 17 valid responses to the survey. The following
companies responded.
The following companies participated in the PW/VCCV Implementation
Survey. The data provided has been aggregated. No specific company's
reponse will be detailed herein.
Time Warner Cable
Bright House Networks
Tinet
AboveNet
Telecom New Zealand
Cox Communications
MTN South Africa
Wipro Technologies
Verizon
AMS-IX
Superonline
Deutsche Telekom AG
Internet Solution
Easynet Global Services
Telstra Corporation
OJSC MegaFon
France Telecom Orange
The following question was asked: "In your network in general,
across all products, please indicate which Pseudowire encapsulations
your company has implemented." Of all responses, the following list
shows the percentage of responses for each encapsulation:
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5%
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4%
SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8%
PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8%
HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.9%
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 17.6%
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 41.2%
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6%
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%
ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0%
CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0%
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8%
TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8%
Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 5.9%
The following question was asked: "Approximately how many
Pseudowires are deployed of each encapsulation type. Note, this should
be the number of pseudowires in service, carrying traffic, or
pre-positioned to do so." The following list shows the number of
psudowires in use for each encapsulation:
Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861
Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231
SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050
PPP - RFC 4618 = 500
HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
CEP - RFC 4842 = 0
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600
TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000
Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap = 0
In the above responses, on several occasions the response was in
the form of "> XXXXX" where the response indicated a number greater
than the one provided. Where applicable, the number itself was used in
the sums above. For example, ">20K" and "20K+" yielded 20K.
Additionally, the following encaps were listed as "In-Use" with no
quantity provided:
Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response
TDMoIP: 1 Response
The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV
Control Channel is used for each encapsulation type. Understanding
that users may have different networks with varying implementations,
for your network in general, please select all which apply." The
numbers below indicate the number of responses. The responses
were:
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Control Word (Type 1) = 7
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
Control Word (Type 1) = 8
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4
SAToP - RFC 4553
Control Word (Type 1) = 1
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
PPP - RFC 4618
Control Word (Type 1) = 0
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
HDLC - RFC 4618
Control Word (Type 1) = 0
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
Control Word (Type 1) = 1
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
Control Word (Type 1) = 3
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
Control Word (Type 1) = 1
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
Control Word (Type 1) = 1
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
Control Word (Type 1) = 0
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
Control Word (Type 1) = 0
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
CEP - RFC 4842
Control Word (Type 1) = 0
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
CESoPSN - RFC 5086
Control Word (Type 1) = 0
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1
TDMoIP - RFC 5087
Control Word (Type 1) = 0
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap
Control Word (Type 1) = 0
Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
The following instructions were given: "Please indicate which VCCV
Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each
encapsulation type." Note that BFD was not one of the choices. The
responses were as follows:
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
ICMP Ping = 5
LSP Ping = 11
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
ICMP Ping = 6
LSP Ping = 11
SAToP - RFC 4553
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 2
PPP - RFC 4618
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 0
HDLC - RFC 4618
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 0
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 1
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
ICMP Ping = 2
LSP Ping = 5
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 1
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 3
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 1
ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 0
CEP - RFC 4842
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 0
CESoPSN - RFC 5086
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 1
TDMoIP - RFC 5087
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 1
Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap
ICMP Ping = 0
LSP Ping = 0
The following instructions were given: "Please indicate your
network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations
for which the Control Word is optional." The responses were:
Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
Supported by Network/Equipment = 13
Used in Network = 6
Ethernet (Raw Mode)
Supported by Network/Equipment = 14
Used in Network = 7
PPP
Supported by Network/Equipment = 5
Used in Network = 0
HDLC
Supported by Network/Equipment = 4
Used in Network = 0
Frame Relay (Port Mode)
Supported by Network/Equipment = 3
Used in Network = 1
ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
Supported by Network/Equipment = 5
Used in Network = 1
Space was provided for user feedback. The following instructions
were given: "Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding
PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey
or any network/vendor details you wish to share." Below are the
responses, made anonymous.
BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be
required for PW redundancy purpose)
Using CV is not required at the moment
COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from
multiple vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of
VCCV Control Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor
platforms. This will provide COMPANY with significant advantages
in reduced operational overheads when handling cross-domain
faults. Having a uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY
multi-vendor network leads to: • Reduced operational cost and
complexity • Reduced OSS development to coordinate
incompatible VCCV implementations. • Increased end-end
service availability when handing faults. In addition, currently
some of COMPANY deployed VCCV traffic flows (on some vendor
platforms) are not guaranteed to follow those of the
customer’s application traffic (a key operational
requirement). As a result, the response from the circuit ping
cannot faithfully reflect the status of the circuit. This leads to
ambiguity regarding the operational status of our networks. An
in-band method is highly preferred, with COMPANY having a clear
preference for VCCV Circuit Ping using PWE Control Word. This
preference is being pursued with each of COMPANY vendors.
PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW
channel. Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW
VCCV using BFD is another better option. Introperbility challences
are with Ethernet OAM mechanism.
We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS -
EoMPLS ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells
over IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson
Media Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing
configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is done
for getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated
ATM packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for transporting 2G/3G
traffic from network such as Node-B to RNC's over IP/MPLS backbone
core network. QoS marking is done for getting guaranteed bandwidth
treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM packets. In
addition to basic L2VPN service configuration, these traffic are
routed via MPLS TE tunnels with dedicated path and bandwidth
defined to avoid bandwidth related congestion.
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure
VCCV control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits.
How can we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of PW
without VCCV in such cases?
I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience
interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space
who are only implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who have
tailed their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul space
and mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space. That's
all I've got.
As this document is a report of the PW/VCCV User Implementation
Survey results, no security considerations are introduced.
This document has no actions for IANA.
I would like to thank the chairs of the PWE3 Working Group for their
guidance and review of the Survey questions. I would also like to
sincerly thank those who took the time and effort to participate.
The detailed reponses are included in this appendix. The respondent
contact info has been removed.
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 423
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
SAToP - RFC 4553
CESoPSN - RFC 5086
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 5000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
SAToP - RFC 4553 - 50
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - 1600
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router
Alert Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
CESoPSN - RFC 5086: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping
CESoPSN - RFC 5086: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)
Used in Network: No Response
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
I'm very interested in this work as we continue to experience
interop challenges particularly with newer vendors to the space who
are only implementing VCCV via control word. Vendors who have tailed
their MPLS OAM set specifically to the cell backhaul space and
mandatory CW have been known to fall into this space. That's all I've
got.
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 800
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
No Response
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
No Response
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)
Used in Network: No Response
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 200
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
No Response
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)
Used in Network: No Response
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER does not provide options to configure VCCV
control-channel and its sub options for LDP based L2Circuits. How can
we achieve end-to-end management and fault detection of PW without
VCCV in such cases?
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
PPP - RFC 4618
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 4000
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router
Alert Label (Type 2)
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
Label (Type 2)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 500
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 20
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 100
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
No Response
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
Mode)
Used in Network: No Response
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
We are using L2PVPN AToM like-to-like models - ATMoMPLS - EoMPLS
ATMoMPLS : This service offered for transporting ATM cells over
IP/MPLS core with Edge ATM CE devices including BPX, Ericsson Media
Gateway etc. This is purely a Port mode with cell-packing
configuration on it to have best performance. QoS marking is done for
getting LLQ treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM
packets. EoMPLS: This service offered for transporting 2G/3G traffic
from network such as Node-B to RNC's over IP/MPLS backbone core
network. QoS marking is done for getting guaranteed bandwidth
treatment in the core for these MPLS encapsulated ATM packets. In
addition to basic L2VPN service configuration, these traffic are
routed via MPLS TE tunnels with dedicated path and bandwidth defined
to avoid bandwidth related congestion.
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
TDMoIP - RFC 5087
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 - In-Use
TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - In-Use
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: Router Alert Label (Type 2)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
TDMoIP - RFC 5087: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
Mode)
Used in Network: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
PW VCCV is very useful tool for finding faults in each PW channel.
Without this we can not find fault on a PW channel. PW VCCV using BFD
is another better option. Introperbility challences are with Ethernet
OAM mechanism.
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 19385
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 15757
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
Mode)
Used in Network: No Response
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 325
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response
Used in Network: No Response
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
PPP - RFC 4618 HDLC - RFC 4618
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 2000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
PPP - RFC 4618 - 500
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 200
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
No Response
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50000
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
No Response
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 3
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 10-20
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 3
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry
(Type 3)
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry
(Type 3)
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1), TTL
Expiry (Type 3)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell
Mode)
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), Frame
Relay (Port Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 150
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router
Alert Label (Type 2)
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert
Label (Type 2)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode)
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
No Response
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 20,000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 20,000
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response
Used in Network: No Response
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
COMPANY has deployed several MPLS network elements, from multiple
vendors. COMPANY is seeking a uniform implementation of VCCV Control
Channel (CC) capabilities across its various vendor platforms. This
will provide COMPANY with significant advantages in reduced
operational overheads when handling cross-domain faults. Having a
uniform VCCV feature implementation in COMPANY multi-vendor network
leads to: • Reduced operational cost and complexity •
Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible VCCV
implementations. • Increased end-end service availability when
handing faults. In addition, currently some of COMPANY deployed VCCV
traffic flows (on some vendor platforms) are not guaranteed to follow
those of the customer’s application traffic (a key operational
requirement). As a result, the response from the circuit ping cannot
faithfully reflect the status of the circuit. This leads to ambiguity
regarding the operational status of our networks. An in-band method is
highly preferred, with COMPANY having a clear preference for VCCV
Circuit Ping using PWE Control Word. This preference is being pursued
with each of COMPANY vendors.
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
No Response
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet
(Raw Mode)
Used in Network: No Resposne
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
Using CV is not required at the moment
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
which Pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
SAToP - RFC 4553
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
CESoPSN - RFC 5086
TDMoIP - RFC 5087
3. Approximately how many Pseudowires are deployed of each
encapsulation type. Note, this should be the number of pseudowires in
service, carrying traffic, or pre-positioned to do so. ***Note, please
indicate "In-Use" for any PW Encap Types which you are using but
cannot provide a number.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use
SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - >20k
TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - >20k
4. Please indicate which VCCV Control Channel is used for each
encapsulation type. Understanding that users may have different
networks with varying implementations, for your network in general,
please select all which apply.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
SAToP - RFC 4553: Control Word (Type 1)
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1)
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1)
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are
used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control
Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
Supported by Network/Equipment: ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
Used in Network: No Response
7. Please use this space to provide any feedback regarding PW and
VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, this survey or any
network/vendor details you wish to share.
BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be
required for PW redundancy purpose)
Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV):
A Control Channel for Pseudowires