[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 RFC 7079

Network Working Group                                  N. Del Regno, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             A. Malis, Ed.
Intended status: Informational                Verizon Communications Inc
Expires: February 22, 2014                               August 21, 2013


 The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
                     Implementation Survey Results
              draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02

Abstract

   Most pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate
   the use of the Control Word (CW) to carry information essential to
   the emulation, to inhibit Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior, and
   to discriminate Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
   from Pseudowire (PW) packets.  However, some encapsulations 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.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 22, 2014.

Copyright Notice





Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  PW/VCCV Survey Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  PW/VCCV Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  PW/VCCV Survey Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  Survey Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  Number of Pseudowires Deployed  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  VCCV Control Channel In Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.5.  VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use . . . . . . .  11
     2.6.  Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is
           Optional  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.7.  Open Ended Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   6.  Appendix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.1.  Respondent 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.2.  Respondent 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.3.  Respondent 3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.4.  Respondent 4  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     6.5.  Respondent 5  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     6.6.  Respondent 6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     6.7.  Respondent 7  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.8.  Respondent 8  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.9.  Respondent 9  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     6.10. Respondent 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     6.11. Respondent 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     6.12. Respondent 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     6.13. Respondent 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     6.14. Respondent 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     6.15. Respondent 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     6.16. Respondent 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


     6.17. Respondent 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36

1.  Introduction

   The IETF PWE3 Working Group has defined many encapsulations of
   various layer 1 and layer 2 service-specific PDUs and circuit data.
   In most of these encapsulations, use of the Pseudowire (PW) Control
   Word is required.  However, there are several encapsulations for
   which the Control Word is optional, and this optionality has been
   seen in practice to possibly introduce interoperability concerns
   between multiple implementations of those encapsulations.

   The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently
   optional are:

   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode [RFC4448]

   o  Ethernet Raw Mode [RFC4448]

   o  PPP [RFC4618]

   o  HDLC [RFC4618]

   o  Frame Relay Port Mode [RFC4618]

   o  ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) [RFC4717]

   Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085] defines
   three Control Channel types for MPLS PW's: Type 1, using the
   pseudowire Control Word, Type 2, using the Router Alert (RA) 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
   permutations, interoperability challenges have been identified by
   several VCCV users.








Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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.

   Note that the intention of this document is to not draw conclusions
   based upon these results, but rather to simply report the results to
   the PWE3 working group for its use when developing other drafts.

1.1.  PW/VCCV Survey Overview

   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 survey was
   conducted using the SurveyMonkey tool, http://www.surveymonkey.com .
   The survey ran from November 4, 2010 until February 25, 2011 and was
   repeatedly publicized on the PWE3 email list over that period.

1.2.  PW/VCCV Survey Form

   The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following information
   about user implementations (the lists of implementation choices were
   taken verbatim from the survey):

   - Responding Organization.  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, draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-
   encap (now [RFC6307]), which were implemented by the respondent.
   These included:

   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448

   o  Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448

   o  SAToP - RFC 4553

   o  PPP - RFC 4618

   o  HDLC - RFC 4618

   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619

   o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717

   o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717

   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717

   o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717

   o  CEP - RFC 4842

   o  CESoPSN - RFC 5086

   o  TDMoIP - RFC 5087

   o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307]

   - 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 [RFC5085] was in use (see Section 1 for a
   discussion of these Control Channels).  The options listed were:

   o  Control Word (Type 1)

   o  Router Alert Label (Type 2)

   o  TTL Expiry (Type 3)

   - For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate
   which Connectivity Verification types [RFC5085] were in use.  The
   options were:

   o  Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Ping

   o  Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping

   - For each encapsulation type for which the use of the Control Word
   is optional, the respondents could indicated the encapsulation for
   which Control Word was supported by the equipment used and whether it
   was in use in the network.  The encapsulations listed were:

   o  Ethernet (Tagged Mode)

   o  Ethernet (Raw Mode)



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   o  PPP

   o  HDLC

   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode)

   o  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.

1.3.  PW/VCCV Survey Highlights

   There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity
   requirements in Section 3.  The responding companies are listed below
   in Section 2.1.

2.  Survey Results

2.1.  Respondents

   The following companies, listed here alphabetically as received in
   the survey responses, participated in the PW/VCCV Implementation
   Survey.  Responses were only solicited from non-vendors (users and
   service providers), and no vendors responded (although if they had,
   their response would not have been included).  The data provided has
   been aggregated.  No specific company's response will be detailed
   herein.

   o  AboveNet

   o  AMS-IX

   o  Bright House Networks

   o  Cox Communications

   o  Deutsche Telekom AG

   o  Easynet Global Services

   o  France Telecom Orange

   o  Internet Solution

   o  MTN South Africa



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   o  OJSC MegaFon

   o  Superonline

   o  Telecom New Zealand

   o  Telstra Corporation

   o  Time Warner Cable

   o  Tinet

   o  Verizon

   o  Wipro Technologies

2.2.  Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented

   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:

   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5%

   o  Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4%

   o  SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8%

   o  PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8%

   o  HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.9%

   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 17.6%

   o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 41.2%

   o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%

   o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6%

   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%

   o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0%

   o  CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0%

   o  CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8%



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   o  TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8%

   o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] =
      5.9%

2.3.  Number of Pseudowires Deployed

   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 pseudowires in use
   for each encapsulation:

   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861

   o  Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231

   o  SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050

   o  PPP - RFC 4618 = 500

   o  HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0

   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002

   o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959

   o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000

   o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103

   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0

   o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0

   o  CEP - RFC 4842 = 0

   o  CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600

   o  TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000

   o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307] = 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.




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   Additionally, the following encapsulations were listed as "In-Use"
   with no quantity provided:

   o  Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses

   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response

   o  TDMoIP: 1 Response

2.4.  VCCV Control Channel In Use

   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:

   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 7

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3

   o  Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 8

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4

   o  SAToP - RFC 4553

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 1

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0

   o  PPP - RFC 4618

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   o  HDLC - RFC 4618

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0

   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 1

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0

   o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 3

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2

   o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 1

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0

   o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 1

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1

   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0

   o  CEP - RFC 4842

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0

   o  CESoPSN - RFC 5086

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1

   o  TDMoIP - RFC 5087

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0

   o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307]

      *  Control Word (Type 1) = 0

      *  Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0

      *  TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0

2.5.  VCCV Connectivity Verification Types In Use

   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:

   o  Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


      *  ICMP Ping = 5

      *  LSP Ping = 11

   o  Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448

      *  ICMP Ping = 6

      *  LSP Ping = 11

   o  SAToP - RFC 4553

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 2

   o  PPP - RFC 4618

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 0

   o  HDLC - RFC 4618

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 0

   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 1

   o  Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619

      *  ICMP Ping = 2

      *  LSP Ping = 5

   o  ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 1

   o  ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 3

   o  ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 1

   o  ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 0

   o  CEP - RFC 4842

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 0

   o  CESoPSN - RFC 5086

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 1

   o  TDMoIP - RFC 5087

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 1

   o  Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - draft-ietf-pwe3-fc-encap [RFC6307]

      *  ICMP Ping = 0

      *  LSP Ping = 0

2.6.  Control Word Support for Encapsulations for which CW is Optional

   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:

   o  Ethernet (Tagged Mode)




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 13

      *  Used in Network = 6

   o  Ethernet (Raw Mode)

      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 14

      *  Used in Network = 7

   o  PPP

      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 5

      *  Used in Network = 0

   o  HDLC

      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 4

      *  Used in Network = 0

   o  Frame Relay (Port Mode)

      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 3

      *  Used in Network = 1

   o  ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)

      *  Supported by Network/Equipment = 5

      *  Used in Network = 1

2.7.  Open Ended Question

   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.  The responses are otherwise provided
   here verbatim.

   1.  BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be
       required for PW redundancy purpose)

   2.  Using CV is not required at the moment




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   3.  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: o Reduced operational cost and
       complexity o Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible
       VCCV implementations. o 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.

   4.  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.  Interoperability
       challenges are with Ethernet OAM mechanism.

   5.  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.

   6.  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?

   7.  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



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


       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.

3.  Security Considerations

   As this document is an informational report of the PW/VCCV User
   Implementation Survey results, no protocol security considerations
   are introduced.

   The editors took precautions to ensure the validity of the sample and
   the data.  Specifically, only responses with recognizable non-vendor
   company-affiliated email addresses were accepted.  Unrecognizable or
   personal email addresses would have been contacted to determine their
   validity, but none were received.  Only one response was received
   from each responding company.  If multiple responses from a company
   had been received, they would have been contacted to determine
   whether the responses were duplicative or additive.  This, however,
   did not occur.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

5.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank the chairs of the PWE3 Working Group for their
   guidance and review of the Survey questions.  We would also like to
   sincerely thank those listed in Section 2.1. who took the time and
   effort to participate.

6.  Appendix

   The detailed responses are included in this appendix.  The respondent
   contact info has been removed.

6.1.  Respondent 1

   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.



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.2.  Respondent 2

   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



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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.




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


6.3.  Respondent 3

   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





Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.4.  Respondent 4

   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





Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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?

6.5.  Respondent 5

   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 [RFC6307]

   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.




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.6.  Respondent 6

   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



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.7.  Respondent 7

   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



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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.

6.8.  Respondent 8

   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



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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.  Interoperability challenges are with
   Ethernet OAM mechanism.

6.9.  Respondent 9

   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








Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.10.  Respondent 10

   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.



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.11.  Respondent 11

   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




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.12.  Respondent 12

   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.



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.13.  Respondent 13

   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




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.14.  Respondent 14

   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
   which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.

   Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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

6.15.  Respondent 15

   2.  In your network in general, across all products, please indicate
   which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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.



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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: o Reduced operational cost and complexity o Reduced OSS
   development to coordinate incompatible VCCV implementations. o
   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.

6.16.  Respondent 16

   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



Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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 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.

   Using CV is not required at the moment

6.17.  Respondent 17

   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





Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 34]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 35]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   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)

7.  Informative References

   [RFC4448]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
              Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.

   [RFC4618]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis,
              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level
              Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618,
              September 2006.

   [RFC4717]  Martini, L., Jayakumar, J., Bocci, M., El-Aawar, N.,
              Brayley, J., and G. Koleyni, "Encapsulation Methods for
              Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS
              Networks", RFC 4717, December 2006.

   [RFC5085]  Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
              Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
              Channel for Pseudowires", December 2007.

   [RFC6307]  Black, D., Dunbar, L., Roth, M., and R. Solomon,
              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel
              Traffic over MPLS Networks", RFC 6307, April 2012.

Authors' Addresses




Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 36]

Internet-Draft    PW/VCCV Implementation Survey Results      August 2013


   Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno (editor)
   Verizon Communications Inc
   400 International Pkwy
   Richardson, TX  75081
   US

   Email: nick.delregno@verizon.com


   Andrew G. Malis (editor)
   Verizon Communications Inc
   60 Sylvan Road
   Waltham, MA  02451
   US

   Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com



































Del Regno & Malis       Expires February 22, 2014              [Page 37]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/