Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Del Regno, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7079 Verizon Communications, Inc.
Category: Informational A. Malis, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Consultant
November 2013
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Del Regno, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7079 Verizon Communications, Inc.
Category: Informational A. Malis, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Consultant
November 2013
The Pseudowire (PW) and Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results
伪线（PW）和虚拟电路连接验证（VCCV）实施调查结果
Abstract
摘要
The IETF Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (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. This survey of the Pseudowire / Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) user community was conducted to determine implementation trends and the possibility of always mandating the Control Word.
IETF伪线仿真边到边（PWE3）工作组定义了各种第1层和第2层特定于服务的PDU和电路数据的许多封装。在大多数封装中，需要使用伪线（PW）控制字。然而，有几种封装的控制字是可选的，这种可选性在实践中已经被发现，可能会在这些封装的多个实现之间引入互操作性问题。对虚拟线路/虚拟电路连接验证（VCCV）用户群体进行的这项调查旨在确定实施趋势以及始终强制控制字的可能性。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7079.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7079.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2013 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................4
1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview ....................................5
1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form ........................................5
1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights ..................................7
2. Survey Results ..................................................8
2.1. Summary of Results .........................................8
2.2. Respondents ................................................8
2.3. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented ......................9
2.4. Number of Pseudowires Deployed ............................10
2.5. VCCV Control Channel in Use ...............................11
2.6. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types in Use ...............14
2.7. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for Which
CW Is Optional ............................................16
2.8. Open-Ended Question .......................................17
3. Security Considerations ........................................18
4. Acknowledgements ...............................................18
5. Informative References .........................................19
Appendix A. Survey Responses ......................................20
A.1. Respondent 1 ...............................................20
A.2. Respondent 2 ...............................................21
A.3. Respondent 3 ...............................................22
A.4. Respondent 4 ...............................................23
A.5. Respondent 5 ...............................................24
A.6. Respondent 6 ...............................................25
A.7. Respondent 7 ...............................................27
A.8. Respondent 8 ...............................................28
A.9. Respondent 9 ...............................................29
A.10. Respondent 10 .............................................30
A.11. Respondent 11 .............................................31
A.12. Respondent 12 .............................................32
A.13. Respondent 13 .............................................33
A.14. Respondent 14 .............................................35
A.15. Respondent 15 .............................................36
A.16. Respondent 16 .............................................38
A.17. Respondent 17 .............................................39
1. Introduction ....................................................4
1.1. PW/VCCV Survey Overview ....................................5
1.2. PW/VCCV Survey Form ........................................5
1.3. PW/VCCV Survey Highlights ..................................7
2. Survey Results ..................................................8
2.1. Summary of Results .........................................8
2.2. Respondents ................................................8
2.3. Pseudowire Encapsulations Implemented ......................9
2.4. Number of Pseudowires Deployed ............................10
2.5. VCCV Control Channel in Use ...............................11
2.6. VCCV Connectivity Verification Types in Use ...............14
2.7. Control Word Support for Encapsulations for Which
CW Is Optional ............................................16
2.8. Open-Ended Question .......................................17
3. Security Considerations ........................................18
4. Acknowledgements ...............................................18
5. Informative References .........................................19
Appendix A. Survey Responses ......................................20
A.1. Respondent 1 ...............................................20
A.2. Respondent 2 ...............................................21
A.3. Respondent 3 ...............................................22
A.4. Respondent 4 ...............................................23
A.5. Respondent 5 ...............................................24
A.6. Respondent 6 ...............................................25
A.7. Respondent 7 ...............................................27
A.8. Respondent 8 ...............................................28
A.9. Respondent 9 ...............................................29
A.10. Respondent 10 .............................................30
A.11. Respondent 11 .............................................31
A.12. Respondent 12 .............................................32
A.13. Respondent 13 .............................................33
A.14. Respondent 14 .............................................35
A.15. Respondent 15 .............................................36
A.16. Respondent 16 .............................................38
A.17. Respondent 17 .............................................39
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 documents to attempt to remedy the situation.
大多数伪线仿真边到边（PWE3）封装要求使用控制字（CW）来携带仿真所必需的信息，抑制等成本多路径（ECMP）行为，并将操作、管理和维护（OAM）与伪线（PW）数据包区分开来。但是，有些封装将控制字视为可选的。因此，对于可选封装，CW的实现因设备制造商、设备型号和服务提供商网络而异。类似地，虚拟电路连接验证（VCCV）支持三种控制通道（CC）类型和多种连接验证（CV）类型。这种灵活性导致了对已部署网络内互操作性问题的报告以及试图纠正这种情况的相关文档。
The encapsulations and modes for which the Control Word is currently optional are:
控制字当前可选的封装和模式有：
o Ethernet Tagged Mode [RFC4448]
o 以太网标记模式[RFC4448]
o Ethernet Raw Mode [RFC4448]
o 以太网原始模式[RFC4448]
o Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [RFC4618]
o 点对点协议（PPP）[RFC4618]
o High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) [RFC4618]
o 高级数据链路控制（HDLC）[RFC4618]
o Frame Relay Port Mode [RFC4618]
o 帧中继端口模式[RFC4618]
o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode) [RFC4717]
o ATM（N:1信元模式）[RFC4717]
Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085] defines three Control Channel types for MPLS PWs: Type 1, using the PW Control Word; Type 2, using the Router Alert (RA) Label; and Type 3, using Time to Live (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 CW 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.
虚拟电路连接验证（VCCV）[RFC5085]为MPLS PWs定义了三种控制通道类型：类型1，使用PW控制字；类型2，使用路由器警报（RA）标签；和类型3，使用生存时间（TTL）到期（例如，TTL==1的MPLS PW标签）。虽然类型2（RA标签）被指示为“当控制字不存在时VCCV操作的首选模式”，但RFC 5085并未指示确保可互操作实施的强制控制通道。当CW出现时，最接近强制控制通道的要求是支持类型1（控制字）。因此，这三个选项产生七种实现排列（假设您必须支持至少一种控制通道类型才能提供VCCV）。由于这些排列，一些VCCV用户发现了互操作性挑战。
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 questionnaire and the information returned by those in the user community who participated.
为了评估解决观察到的互操作性问题的最佳方法，PWE3工作组决定征求PW和VCCV用户社区关于实施的反馈意见。本文件介绍了调查问卷和参与调查的用户社区人员返回的信息。
Per the direction of the PWE3 working group chairs, a survey was created to sample the nature of implementations of PWs, 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.
根据PWE3工作组主席的指示，创建了一项调查，以抽样调查PWs实施的性质，重点是控制字的使用，以及VCCV，重点是控制通道和控制类型的使用。调查包括一系列基于工作组主席指示的问题，调查于2010年11月4日向公众开放。调查使用SurveyMonkey工具进行，http://www.surveymonkey.com. 这项调查从2010年11月4日持续到2011年2月25日，并在这段时间内多次在PWE3电子邮件列表上公布。
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.
编辑们采取了预防措施以确保样本和数据的有效性。具体而言，只接受带有可识别的非供应商公司附属电子邮件地址的回复。无法识别的或个人的电子邮件地址将被联系以确定其有效性，但没有收到。每个答复公司只收到一份答复。如果收到一家公司的多个回复，则会联系他们以确定这些回复是重复的还是附加的。然而，这并没有发生。
The PW/VCCV Implementation Survey requested the following information about user implementations (the lists of implementation choices were taken verbatim from the survey):
PW/VCCV实施调查要求提供以下关于用户实施的信息（实施选择列表逐字取自调查）：
- Responding Organization. No provisions were made for anonymous responses, as all responses required a valid email address in order to validate the survey response. However, the results herein are reported anonymously, except for an alphabetic list of participating organizations in Section 2.2.
- 响应组织。没有规定匿名回复，因为所有回复都需要有效的电子邮件地址才能验证调查回复。然而，本文的结果是匿名报告的，第2.2节中按字母顺序列出的参与组织除外。
- Of the various encapsulations (and options therein) known at the time, including the WG document, "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now [RFC6307]), which were implemented by the respondent. These included:
- 当时已知的各种封装（以及其中的选项），包括工作组文件“光纤通道传输的封装方法”（现为[RFC6307]），由响应者实施。这些措施包括：
o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
o 以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
o 以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
o Structure-Agnostic Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) over Packet (SAToP) - RFC 4553
o 数据包上的结构无关时分复用（TDM）（SAToP）-RFC4553
o PPP - RFC 4618
o PPP-RFC 4618
o HDLC - RFC 4618
o HDLC-RFC4618
o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
o 帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619
o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
o 帧中继（1:1模式）-RFC 4619
o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（N:1模式）-RFC 4717
o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（1:1模式）-RFC 4717
o ATM (AAL5 Service Data Unit (SDU) Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（AAL5业务数据单元（SDU）模式）-RFC 4717
o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（AAL5 PDU模式）-RFC 4717
o Circuit Emulation over Packet (CEP) - RFC 4842
o 分组电路仿真（CEP）-RFC4842
o Circuit Emulation Service over Packet Switched Network (CESoPSN) - RFC 5086
o 分组交换网络（CESoPSN）上的电路仿真服务.RFC 5086
o Time Division Multiplexing over IP (TDMoIP) - RFC 5087
o IP时分多路复用（TDMoIP）-RFC5087
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307)
o 光纤通道（端口模式）-“光纤通道传输的封装方法”（现为RFC 6307）
- Approximately how many PWs of each type were deployed. Respondents could list a number, or for the sake of privacy, could just respond "In-Use" instead.
- 大约部署了每种类型的PW数量。受访者可以列出一个数字，或者出于隐私考虑，可以只回答“正在使用”。
- For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate which Control Channel [RFC5085] was in use. (See Section 1 for a discussion of these Control Channels.) The options listed were:
- 对于上面列出的每个封装，响应者可以指出使用了哪个控制通道[RFC5085]。（有关这些控制通道的讨论，请参见第1节。）列出的选项包括：
o Control Word (Type 1)
o 控制字（类型1）
o Router Alert Label (Type 2)
o 路由器警报标签（类型2）
o TTL Expiry (Type 3)
o TTL到期日（类型3）
- For each encapsulation listed above, the respondent could indicate which Connectivity Verification types [RFC5085] were in use. The options were:
- 对于上面列出的每个封装，响应者可以指出使用了哪些连接验证类型[RFC5085]。这些选择是：
o Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Ping
o Internet控制消息协议（ICMP）Ping
o Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
o 标签交换路径（LSP）Ping
- For each encapsulation type for which the Control Word is optional, the respondents could indicate the encapsulation(s) for which Control Word was supported by the equipment vendor, and whether the CW was also in use in the network. The encapsulations listed were:
- 对于控制字可选的每种封装类型，应答者可以指出设备供应商支持的控制字封装，以及CW是否也在网络中使用。列出的封装包括：
o Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
o 以太网（标记模式）
o Ethernet (Raw Mode)
o 以太网（原始模式）
o PPP
o 购买力平价
o HDLC
o HDLC
o Frame Relay (Port Mode)
o 帧中继（端口模式）
o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
o ATM（N:1信元模式）
- Finally, a free-form entry was provided for the respondent to provide feedback regarding PW and VCCV deployments, VCCV interoperability challenges, or the survey or any other network/ vendor details they wished to share.
- 最后，为受访者提供了一个自由形式的条目，以提供关于PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、调查或他们希望共享的任何其他网络/供应商详细信息的反馈。
There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity requirements in Section 1.1. The responding companies are listed below in Section 2.2.
有17份对调查的回复符合第1.1节中的有效性要求。下文第2.2节列出了响应公司。
Prior to this survey, there was considerable speculation about whether the Control Word could always be mandated, with several proposals to do so. However, the survey showed that there was considerable deployment of PWs that did not use the CW. The publication of this survey serves as a reminder of the extent of PWs without the CW in use, and hence a reminder that the CW-less modes cannot be deprecated in the near future.
在这项调查之前，有相当多的人猜测是否可以始终强制使用控制词，并提出了一些这样做的建议。然而，调查显示，有相当多的PWs部署未使用CW。本调查的发布提醒人们，在不使用CW的情况下，PWs的范围，因此提醒人们，在不久的将来，不使用CW的模式是不可取的。
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.
以下公司（按收到的调查回复字母顺序排列）参与了PW/VCCV实施调查。仅向非供应商（用户和服务提供商）征求回复，没有供应商回复（尽管如果他们回复了，他们的回复将不会包括在内）。所提供的数据已汇总。此处不详细说明具体公司的回复。
o AboveNet
o 光明正大
o AMS-IX
o AMS-IX
o Bright House Networks
o 光明之家网络
o Cox Communications
o 考克斯通信公司
o Deutsche Telekom AG
o 德国电信
o Easynet Global Services
o Easynet全球服务
o France Telecom Orange
o 法国电信橙
o Internet Solution
o 互联网解决方案
o MTN South Africa
o MTN南非
o OJSC MegaFon
o OJSC MegaFon
o Superonline
o 超直线
o Telecom New Zealand
o 新西兰电信
o Telstra Corporation
o 澳大利亚电信公司
o Time Warner Cable
o 时代华纳有线电视
o Tinet
o 马口铁
o Verizon
o 威瑞森
o Wipro Technologies
o 威普罗科技公司
The following request was made: "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:
提出了以下请求：“在您的网络中，一般来说，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。”在所有响应中，以下列表显示了每个封装的响应百分比：
o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 = 76.5%
o 以太网标记模式-RFC 4448=76.5%
o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 = 82.4%
o 以太网原始模式-RFC 4448=82.4%
o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 11.8%
o SAToP-RFC 4553=11.8%
o PPP - RFC 4618 = 11.8%
o 购买力平价-RFC 4618=11.8%
o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 5.9%
o HDLC-RFC 4618=5.9%
o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 17.6%
o 帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619=17.6%
o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 41.2%
o 帧中继（1:1模式）-RFC 4619=41.2%
o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%
o ATM（N:1模式）-RFC 4717=5.9%
o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 17.6%
o ATM（1:1模式）-RFC 4717=17.6%
o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 5.9%
o ATM（AAL5 SDU模式）-RFC 4717=5.9%
o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0.0%
o ATM（AAL5 PDU模式）-RFC 4717=0.0%
o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0.0%
o CEP-RFC 4842=0.0%
o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 11.8%
o CESoPSN-RFC 5086=11.8%
o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 11.8%
o TDMoIP-RFC 5087=11.8%
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307) = 5.9%
o 光纤通道（端口模式）-“光纤通道传输的封装方法”（现在的RFC 6307）=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 pseudowires in use for each encapsulation:
提出了以下问题：“每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。请注意，这应该是正在使用、承载流量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量。”以下列表显示了每个封装使用的伪线的数量：
o Ethernet Tagged Mode = 93,861
o 以太网标记模式=93861
o Ethernet Raw Mode = 94,231
o 以太网原始模式=94231
o SAToP - RFC 4553 = 20,050
o SAToP-RFC 4553=20050
o PPP - RFC 4618 = 500
o 购买力平价-RFC 4618=500
o HDLC - RFC 4618 = 0
o HDLC-RFC4618=0
o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 = 5,002
o 帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619=5002
o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 = 50,959
o 帧中继（1:1模式）-RFC 4619=50959
o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 50,000
o ATM（N:1模式）-RFC 4717=50000
o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 = 70,103
o ATM（1:1模式）-RFC 4717=70103
o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
o ATM（AAL5 SDU模式）-RFC 4717=0
o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717 = 0
o ATM（AAL5 PDU模式）-RFC 4717=0
o CEP - RFC 4842 = 0
o CEP-RFC 4842=0
o CESoPSN - RFC 5086 = 21,600
o CESoPSN-RFC 5086=21600
o TDMoIP - RFC 5087 = 20,000
o TDMoIP-RFC 5087=20000
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307) = 0
o 光纤通道（端口模式）-“光纤通道传输的封装方法”（现RFC 6307）=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.
在上述回复中（多次），回复形式为“>XXXXX”，其中回复表示的数字大于提供的数字。在适用的情况下，上述金额中使用了数字本身。例如，“>20K”和“20K+”产生20K。
Additionally, the following encapsulations were listed as "In-Use" with no quantity provided:
此外，以下封装被列为“正在使用”，未提供数量：
o Ethernet Raw Mode: 2 Responses
o 以太网原始模式：2个响应
o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode): 1 Response
o ATM（AAL5 SDU模式）：1个响应
o TDMoIP: 1 Response
o TDMoIP:1响应
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:
给出了以下说明：“请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解用户可能有不同的网络，实现方式不同，对于您的网络，请选择所有适用的网络。”下面的数字表示响应的数量。答复如下：
o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
o 以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
* Control Word (Type 1) = 7
* 控制字（类型1）=7
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 3
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=3
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 3
* TTL到期日（类型3）=3
o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
o 以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
* Control Word (Type 1) = 8
* 控制字（类型1）=8
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 4
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=4
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 4
* TTL到期日（类型3）=4
o SAToP - RFC 4553
o SAToP-RFC 4553
* Control Word (Type 1) = 1
* 控制字（类型1）=1
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型3）=0
o PPP - RFC 4618
o PPP-RFC 4618
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* 控制字（类型1）=0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型3）=0
o HDLC - RFC 4618
o HDLC-RFC4618
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* 控制字（类型1）=0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型3）=0
o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
o 帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619
* Control Word (Type 1) = 1
* 控制字（类型1）=1
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型3）=0
o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
o 帧中继（1:1模式）-RFC 4619
* Control Word (Type 1) = 3
* 控制字（类型1）=3
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 2
* TTL到期日（类型3）=2
o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（N:1模式）-RFC 4717
* Control Word (Type 1) = 1
* 控制字（类型1）=1
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型3）=0
o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（1:1模式）-RFC 4717
* Control Word (Type 1) = 1
* 控制字（类型1）=1
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1
* TTL到期日（类型3）=1
o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（AAL5 SDU模式）-RFC 4717
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* 控制字（类型1）=0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 1
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=1
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型3）=0
o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（AAL5 PDU模式）-RFC 4717
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* 控制字（类型1）=0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型3）=0
o CEP - RFC 4842
o CEP-RFC4842
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* 控制字（类型1）=0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型3）=0
o CESoPSN - RFC 5086
o CESoPSN-RFC 5086
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* 控制字（类型1）=0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 1
* TTL到期日（类型3）=1
o TDMoIP - RFC 5087
o TDMoIP-RFC 5087
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* 控制字（类型1）=0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型3）=0
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307)
o 光纤通道（端口模式）-“光纤通道传输的封装方法”（现为RFC 6307）
* Control Word (Type 1) = 0
* 控制字（类型1）=0
* Router Alert Label (Type 2) = 0
* 路由器警报标签（类型2）=0
* TTL Expiry (Type 3) = 0
* TTL到期日（类型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 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) was not one of the choices. The responses were as follows:
给出了以下说明：“请指出网络中针对每种封装类型使用了哪些VCCV连接验证类型。”请注意，双向转发检测（BFD）不是选择之一。答复如下：
o Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
o 以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
* ICMP Ping = 5
* ICMP Ping=5
* LSP Ping = 11
* LSP Ping=11
o Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
o 以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
* ICMP Ping = 6
* ICMP Ping=6
* LSP Ping = 11
* LSP Ping=11
o SAToP - RFC 4553
o SAToP-RFC 4553
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 2
* LSP Ping=2
o PPP - RFC 4618
o PPP-RFC 4618
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 0
* LSP Ping=0
o HDLC - RFC 4618
o HDLC-RFC4618
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 0
* LSP Ping=0
o Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
o 帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 1
* LSP Ping=1
o Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
o 帧中继（1:1模式）-RFC 4619
* ICMP Ping = 2
* ICMP Ping=2
* LSP Ping = 5
* LSP Ping=5
o ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（N:1模式）-RFC 4717
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 1
* LSP Ping=1
o ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（1:1模式）-RFC 4717
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 3
* LSP Ping=3
o ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（AAL5 SDU模式）-RFC 4717
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 1
* LSP Ping=1
o ATM (AAL5 PDU Mode) - RFC 4717
o ATM（AAL5 PDU模式）-RFC 4717
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 0
* LSP Ping=0
o CEP - RFC 4842
o CEP-RFC4842
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 0
* LSP Ping=0
o CESoPSN - RFC 5086
o CESoPSN-RFC 5086
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 1
* LSP Ping=1
o TDMoIP - RFC 5087
o TDMoIP-RFC 5087
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP Ping = 1
* LSP Ping=1
o Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307)
o 光纤通道（端口模式）-“光纤通道传输的封装方法”（现为RFC 6307）
* ICMP Ping = 0
* ICMP Ping=0
* LSP 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:
给出了以下说明：“请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。”回答如下：
o Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
o 以太网（标记模式）
* Supported by Network/Equipment = 13
* 由网络/设备支持=13
* Used in Network = 6
* 用于网络=6
o Ethernet (Raw Mode)
o 以太网（原始模式）
* Supported by Network/Equipment = 14
* 由网络/设备支持=14
* Used in Network = 7
* 用于网络=7
o PPP
o 购买力平价
* Supported by Network/Equipment = 5
* 由网络/设备支持=5
* Used in Network = 0
* 在网络中使用=0
o HDLC
o HDLC
* Supported by Network/Equipment = 4
* 由网络/设备支持=4
* Used in Network = 0
* 在网络中使用=0
o Frame Relay (Port Mode)
o 帧中继（端口模式）
* Supported by Network/Equipment = 3
* 由网络/设备支持=3
* Used in Network = 1
* 在网络中使用=1
o ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
o ATM（N:1信元模式）
* Supported by Network/Equipment = 5
* 由网络/设备支持=5
* Used in Network = 1
* 在网络中使用=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. The responses are otherwise provided here verbatim.
为用户反馈提供了空间。给出了以下说明：“请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。”以下是匿名回复。此处逐字提供了回复。
1. BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be required for PW redundancy purpose)
1. 测量中未显示BFD VCCV控制通道（可能需要PW冗余）
2. Using CV is not required at the moment
2. 目前不需要使用CV
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:
3. 该公司已经部署了多家供应商提供的多个MPLS网络元件。该公司正在寻求在其各种供应商平台上统一实施VCCV控制通道（CC）功能。这将为公司在处理跨域故障时减少运营开销提供显著优势。在公司多供应商网络中实施统一的VCCV功能将导致：
o Reduced operational cost and complexity
o 降低了运营成本和复杂性
o Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible VCCV implementations.
o 减少OSS开发以协调不兼容的VCCV实现。
o Increased end-end service availability when handing faults.
o 处理故障时提高了终端服务可用性。
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.
此外，目前一些公司部署的VCCV流量（在一些供应商平台上）不能保证遵循客户的应用程序流量（一项关键操作要求）。因此，电路ping的响应不能真实反映电路的状态。这导致我们的网络运行状态模糊不清。高度首选带内方法，公司明确首选使用PWE控制字的VCCV电路Ping。每个公司供应商都在追求这一偏好。
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.
4. PW VCCV是在每个PW通道中查找故障的非常有用的工具。没有这一点，我们就无法在PW通道上找到故障。使用BFD的PW VCCV是另一个更好的选择。以太网OAM机制存在互操作性挑战。
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.
5. 我们正在使用L2PVN AToM-to-like型号-ATMoMPLS-EoMPLS ATMoMPLS：此服务用于通过IP/MPLS核心和边缘ATM CE设备（包括BPX、爱立信媒体网关等）传输ATM信元。这纯粹是一种端口模式，其信元打包配置具有最佳性能。QoS标记用于在这些MPLS封装的ATM数据包的核心中获得LLQ处理。EoMPLS：该服务用于将2G/3G流量从网络（如Node-B）传输到RNC的IP/MPLS骨干核心网络。QoS标记用于在这些MPLS封装的ATM数据包的核心中获得有保证的带宽处理。除了基本的L2VPN服务配置外，这些流量通过MPLS TE隧道路由，并定义专用路径和带宽，以避免与带宽相关的拥塞。
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?
6. 设备制造商没有为基于LDP的L2电路提供配置VCCV控制通道及其子选项的选项。在这种情况下，如果没有VCCV，我们如何实现PW的端到端管理和故障检测？
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 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.
7. 我对这项工作非常感兴趣，因为我们继续面临互操作的挑战，特别是对于那些只通过控制字实现VCCV的新供应商。已经知道，专门将其MPLS OAM集跟踪到小区回程空间和强制CW的供应商属于该空间。我只有这些了。
As this document is an informational report of the PW/VCCV User Implementation Survey results, no protocol security considerations are introduced.
由于本文件是PW/VCCV用户实施调查结果的信息报告，因此未引入协议安全注意事项。
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 2.2. who took the time and effort to participate.
我们要感谢PWE3工作组主席对调查问题的指导和审查。我们还要衷心感谢第2.2节中列出的人员。他们花了时间和精力去参与。
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron, "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
[RFC4448]Martini，L.，Rosen，E.，El Aawar，N.，和G.Heron，“通过MPLS网络传输以太网的封装方法”，RFC 4448，2006年4月。
[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.
[RFC4618]Martini，L.，Rosen，E.，Heron，G.，和A.Malis，“通过MPLS网络传输PPP/高级数据链路控制（HDLC）的封装方法”，RFC 4618，2006年9月。
[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.
[RFC4717]Martini，L.，Jayakumar，J.，Bocci，M.，El-Aawar，N.，Brayley，J.，和G.Koleyni，“MPLS网络上异步传输模式（ATM）传输的封装方法”，RFC 47172006年12月。
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires", December 2007.
[RFC5085]Nadeau，T.，Ed.和C.Pignataro，Ed.，“伪线虚拟电路连接验证（VCCV）：伪线的控制通道”，2007年12月。
[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.
[RFC6307]Black，D.，Dunbar，L.，Roth，M.，和R.Solomon，“通过MPLS网络传输光纤通道流量的封装方法”，RFC 6307，2012年4月。
The detailed responses are included in this appendix. The respondent contact info has been removed.
详细的答复包含在本附录中。受访者联系信息已被删除。
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 423
以太网标记模式-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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1）
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
用于网络：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
SAToP - RFC 4553
SAToP-RFC 4553
CESoPSN - RFC 5086
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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 5000
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448-5000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448-1000
SAToP - RFC 4553 - 50
SAToP-RFC 4553-50
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - 1600
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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1）、路由器警报标签（类型2）、TTL到期（类型3）
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1）、路由器警报标签（类型2）、TTL到期（类型3）
CESoPSN - RFC 5086: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
CESoPSN-RFC 5086：TTL到期日（类型3）
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：ICMP Ping、LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：ICMP Ping、LSP Ping
SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping
SAToP-RFC 4553：LSP Ping
CESoPSN - RFC 5086: 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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
Used in Network: No Response
用于网络：无响应
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
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.
我对这项工作非常感兴趣，因为我们继续面临互操作的挑战，特别是对于那些只通过控制字实现VCCV的新供应商。已经知道，专门将其MPLS OAM集跟踪到小区回程空间和强制CW的供应商属于该空间。我只有这些了。
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（1:1模式）-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 800
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448-800
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448-50
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - 2
帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619-2
Frame Relay (1:1 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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
No Response
没有回应
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
No Response
没有回应
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
Used in Network: No Response
用于网络：无响应
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448-1000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 200
以太网原始模式-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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
No Response
没有回应
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448:LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
Used in Network: No Response
用于网络：无响应
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
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?
设备制造商没有为基于LDP的L2电路提供配置VCCV控制通道及其子选项的选项。在这种情况下，如果没有VCCV，我们如何实现PW的端到端管理和故障检测？
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
PPP - RFC 4618
PPP-RFC 4618
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（1:1模式）-RFC 4619
Fiber Channel (Port Mode) - "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Fibre Channel" (now RFC 6307)
光纤通道（端口模式）-“光纤通道传输的封装方法”（现为RFC 6307）
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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 4000
以太网标记模式-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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert Label (Type 2)
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1），路由器警报标签（类型2）
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert Label (Type 2)
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1），路由器警报标签（类型2）
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
用于网络：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000+
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 500
以太网原始模式-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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1）
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1）
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：ICMP Ping、LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
用于网络：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM（1:1模式）-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 20
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448-20
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 100
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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
No Response
没有回应
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448:LSP Ping
ATM (1:1 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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）、PPP、HDLC、帧中继（端口模式）、ATM（N:1信元模式）
Used in Network: No Response
用于网络：无响应
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
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.
我们正在使用L2PVN AToM-to-like型号-ATMoMPLS-EoMPLS ATMoMPLS：此服务用于通过IP/MPLS核心和边缘ATM CE设备（包括BPX、爱立信媒体网关等）传输ATM信元。这纯粹是一种端口模式，其信元打包配置具有最佳性能。QoS标记用于在这些MPLS封装的ATM数据包的核心中获得LLQ处理。EoMPLS：该服务用于将2G/3G流量从网络（如Node-B）传输到RNC的IP/MPLS骨干核心网络。QoS标记用于在这些MPLS封装的ATM数据包的核心中获得有保证的带宽处理。除了基本的L2VPN服务配置外，这些流量通过MPLS TE隧道路由，并定义专用路径和带宽，以避免与带宽相关的拥塞。
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM（AAL5 SDU模式）-RFC 4717
TDMoIP - RFC 5087
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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448-正在使用
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717 - In-Use
ATM（AAL5 SDU模式）-RFC 4717-正在使用
TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - In-Use
TDMoIP-RFC 5087-正在使用
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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1）
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: Router Alert Label (Type 2)
ATM（AAL5 SDU模式）-RFC 4717：路由器警报标签（类型2）
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448:LSP Ping
ATM (AAL5 SDU Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
ATM（AAL5 SDU模式）-RFC 4717:LSP Ping
TDMoIP - RFC 5087: 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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（原始模式）、ATM（N:1信元模式）
Used in Network: Ethernet (Raw Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
用于网络：以太网（原始模式）、ATM（N:1信元模式）
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
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.
PW VCCV是在每个PW通道中查找故障的非常有用的工具。没有这一点，我们就无法在PW通道上找到故障。使用BFD的PW VCCV是另一个更好的选择。以太网OAM机制存在互操作性挑战。
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（1:1模式）-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 19385
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448-19385
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 15757
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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)
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.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）、PPP、HDLC、帧中继（端口模式）、ATM（N:1信元模式）
Used in Network: No Response
用于网络：无响应
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 325
以太网原始模式-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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1）
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response
网络/设备支持：无响应
Used in Network: No Response
用于网络：无响应
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
PPP - RFC 4618 HDLC - RFC 4618
PPP-RFC 4618 HDLC-RFC 4618
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（1:1模式）-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 2000
以太网标记模式-RFC4448-2000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448-100
PPP - RFC 4618 - 500
PPP-RFC 4618-500
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 200
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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
No Response
没有回应
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：ICMP Ping、LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：ICMP Ping、LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: 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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）、PPP、HDLC
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode)
用于网络：以太网（标记模式）
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 50000
以太网原始模式-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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert Label (Type 2), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1）、路由器警报标签（类型2）、TTL到期（类型3）
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
No Response
没有回应
6. Please indicate your network's support of and use of the Control Word for encapsulations for which the Control Word is optional.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
用于网络：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（1:1模式）-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 3
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448-3
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 10-20
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448-10-20
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 3
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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1），TTL到期（类型3）
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1），TTL到期（类型3）
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1), TTL Expiry (Type 3)
帧中继（1:1模式）-RFC 4619：控制字（类型1），TTL到期（类型3）
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：ICMP Ping、LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：ICMP Ping、LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: 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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode), ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）、PPP、HDLC、帧中继（端口模式）、ATM（N:1信元模式）
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), Frame Relay (Port Mode)
用于网络：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）、帧中继（端口模式）
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 150
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448-150
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
以太网原始模式-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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert Label (Type 2)
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1），路由器警报标签（类型2）
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1), Router Alert Label (Type 2)
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1），路由器警报标签（类型2）
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448:LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode), PPP, HDLC, Frame Relay (Port Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）、PPP、HDLC、帧中继（端口模式）
Used in Network: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
用于网络：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
No Response
没有回应
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（1:1模式）-RFC 4619
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM（1:1模式）-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 20,000
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448-20000
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 1000
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448-1000
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - 30,000
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - 20,000
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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448:TTL到期（类型3）
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: TTL Expiry (Type 3)
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448:TTL到期（类型3）
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: 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)
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.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448:LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448:LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
ATM (1:1 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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: No Response
网络/设备支持：无响应
Used in Network: No Response
用于网络：无响应
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
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:
该公司已经部署了多家供应商提供的多个MPLS网络元件。该公司正在寻求在其各种供应商平台上统一实施VCCV控制通道（CC）功能。这将为公司在处理跨域故障时减少运营开销提供显著优势。在公司多供应商网络中实施统一的VCCV功能将导致：
o Reduced operational cost and complexity
o 降低了运营成本和复杂性
o Reduced OSS development to coordinate incompatible VCCV implementations.
o 减少OSS开发以协调不兼容的VCCV实现。
o Increased end-end service availability when handing faults.
o 处理故障时提高了终端服务可用性。
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.
此外，目前一些公司部署的VCCV流量（在一些供应商平台上）不能保证遵循客户的应用程序流量（一项关键操作要求）。因此，电路ping的响应不能真实反映电路的状态。这导致我们的网络运行状态模糊不清。高度首选带内方法，公司明确首选使用PWE控制字的VCCV电路Ping。每个公司供应商都在追求这一偏好。
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448
以太网原始模式-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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448-100
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - 100
以太网原始模式-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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
No Response
没有回应
5. Please indicate which VCCV Connectivity Verification types are used in your networks for each encapsulation type.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：ICMP Ping、LSP Ping
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448: ICMP Ping, LSP Ping
以太网原始模式-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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: Ethernet (Tagged Mode), Ethernet (Raw Mode)
网络/设备支持：以太网（标记模式）、以太网（原始模式）
Used in Network: No Response
用于网络：无响应
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
Using CV is not required at the moment
目前不需要使用CV
2. In your network in general, across all products, please indicate which pseudowire encapsulations your company has implemented.
2. 一般来说，在您的网络中，在所有产品中，请指出您的公司实施了哪些伪线封装。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448
SAToP - RFC 4553
SAToP-RFC 4553
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619
帧中继（1:1模式）-RFC 4619
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM（N:1模式）-RFC 4717
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717
ATM（1:1模式）-RFC 4717
CESoPSN - RFC 5086
CESoPSN-RFC 5086
TDMoIP - RFC 5087
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.
3. 每个封装类型大约部署了多少条伪线。注意，这应该是正在使用、承载通信量或为此预先定位的伪线的数量***注意，对于您正在使用但无法提供数字的任何PW Encap类型，请注明“正在使用”。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448 - >40k
Ethernet Raw Mode - RFC 4448 - In-Use
以太网原始模式-RFC 4448-正在使用
SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k
SAToP - RFC 4553 - >20k
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619 - >5k
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k
ATM (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4717 - >50k
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - >20k
CESoPSN - RFC 5086 - >20k
TDMoIP - RFC 5087 - >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.
4. 请指出每种封装类型使用的VCCV控制通道。了解到用户可能有不同的网络和不同的实现，对于您的一般网络，请选择所有适用的。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: Control Word (Type 1)
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448：控制字（类型1）
SAToP - RFC 4553: Control Word (Type 1)
SAToP-RFC 4553：控制字（类型1）
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: Control Word (Type 1)
帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619：控制字（类型1）
Frame Relay (1:1 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 (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: Control Word (Type 1)
ATM (1:1 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.
5. 请为每种封装类型指明网络中使用的VCCV连接验证类型。
Ethernet Tagged Mode - RFC 4448: LSP Ping
以太网标记模式-RFC 4448:LSP Ping
SAToP - RFC 4553: LSP Ping
SAToP-RFC 4553：LSP Ping
Frame Relay (Port Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
帧中继（端口模式）-RFC 4619:LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
Frame Relay (1:1 Mode) - RFC 4619: LSP Ping
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
ATM (N:1 Mode) - RFC 4717: LSP Ping
ATM (1:1 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.
6. 请说明您的网络对控制字可选的封装的支持和使用情况。
Supported by Network/Equipment: ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
Supported by Network/Equipment: ATM (N:1 Cell Mode)
Used in Network: No Response
用于网络：无响应
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.
7. 请使用此空间提供有关PW和VCCV部署、VCCV互操作性挑战、本次调查或您希望共享的任何网络/供应商详细信息的任何反馈。
BFD VCCV Control Channel is not indicated in the survey (may be required for PW redundancy purpose)
测量中未显示BFD VCCV控制通道（可能需要PW冗余）
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Christopher N. "Nick" Del Regno (editor) Verizon Communications, Inc. 400 International Pkwy Richardson, TX 75081 US
Christopher N.“Nick”Del Regno（编辑）Verizon Communications，Inc.美国德克萨斯州理查森市国际400号，邮编75081
EMail: nick.delregno@verizon.com
EMail: nick.delregno@verizon.com
Andrew G. Malis (editor) Consultant
Andrew G.Malis（编辑）顾问
EMail: agmalis@gmail.com
EMail: agmalis@gmail.com