1. IETF65 draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt Page - 1 Requirement for inter-domain Pseudo Wires Nabil Bitar (Verizon) Matthew Bocci (Alcatel) Luca Martini (Cisco) March 21, 2006 IETF-65, Dallas

2. IETF65 draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt Page - 2 Last Update n Done before IETF64 in Vancouver but was not presented n Mainly restructured document to: –Lay down the requirements in increasing order of complexity as they apply to different MS-PW placement mechanisms –Better clarify common requirements and what applies to each MS- PW placement mechanism n Organized the document into the following main sections: –MS-PW Architecture –MS-PW use cases and configurations: Statically configured MS-PWsStatically configured MS-PWs Signaled MS-PWs with static routing (i.e., configured S-PEs)Signaled MS-PWs with static routing (i.e., configured S-PEs) Signaled MS-PWs with dynamic routing (i.e., S-PEs determined based on dynamic routing)Signaled MS-PWs with dynamic routing (i.e., S-PEs determined based on dynamic routing) –Requirements on MS-PW placement mechanisms Common requirementsCommon requirements Requirements on each of the following for architecture, resiliency, QoS and routingRequirements on each of the following for architecture, resiliency, QoS and routing –Statically configured MS-PWs –Signaled MS-PWs –Signaled MS-PWs with dynamic routing –OAM –Security Considerations

3. IETF65 draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt Page - 3 Comments on the list -They have not been addressed yet but will be in the document and on the mailing list -Benjamin Jenkins (BT) provided good and detailed editorial comments -Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) comments Requirement: VCCV SHOULD be provided both end-to-end across the MS-PW, and on a segment (i.e. SS-PW) basis Requirement: VCCV SHOULD be provided both end-to-end across the MS-PW, and on a segment (i.e. SS-PW) basis Comment: what's the requirement ? shouldn't you state extension of SS- PW OAM mechanism rather than mandating specific solution ? Comment: what's the requirement ? shouldn't you state extension of SS- PW OAM mechanism rather than mandating specific solution ? Answer: There is no solution mandate but a requirement for end-end OAM and segment-based OAM that solution-wise are expected to be extensions to existing VCCV mechanisms Answer: There is no solution mandate but a requirement for end-end OAM and segment-based OAM that solution-wise are expected to be extensions to existing VCCV mechanisms Requirement: Solutions MUST support use of SS-PW signaling mechanisms as specified in [PW-control] Requirement: Solutions MUST support use of SS-PW signaling mechanisms as specified in [PW-control] Comment: the notion of "support use of" is rather unclear ? Comment: the notion of "support use of" is rather unclear ? Answer: What is meant here is that solutions must be able to support the setup of a segment of a MS-PW using existing SS-PW setup mechanisms. Better rewording is probably in order Answer: What is meant here is that solutions must be able to support the setup of a segment of a MS-PW using existing SS-PW setup mechanisms. Better rewording is probably in order

4. IETF65 draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt Page - 4 Next Steps n Re-issue draft addressing the comments n Ask the chairs to issue a WG last call