[bmwg] MPLS Protection Mechanisms Methodology

Scott Poretsky <sporetsky@avici.com> Mon, 07 July 2003 20:40 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14214 for <bmwg-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZcmH-0003mc-6m; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:40:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19Zclf-0003ls-SC for bmwg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:39:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14178 for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zcld-0002Rk-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:39:21 -0400
Received: from [] (helo=maildev.avici.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19Zcld-0002Rh-00 for bmwg@ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:39:21 -0400
Received: from sporetsky-lt.avici.com ([]) by maildev.avici.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id h67KdA305427; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:39:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: sporetsky@pop.avici.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:41:07 -0400
To: Kevin Dubray <kdubray@juniper.net>
From: Scott Poretsky <sporetsky@avici.com>
Subject: [bmwg] MPLS Protection Mechanisms Methodology
Cc: Al Morton <acmorton@att.com>, jerry.perser@spirentcom.com, bmwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <3F09D4F3.6020003@juniper.net>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: bmwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>


I believe this is consistent with the work that has been completed thus far 
on the Protection Terminology draft and the MPLS Protection Methodology 

Please note that the MPLS Protection Methodology draft uses only existing 
terms from existing RFCs produced by the MPLS Working Group.  The 
co-authors prefer that the MPLS Protection Methodology remain consistent 
with the MPLS WG.  Do you agree with this approach?


At 04:15 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Kevin Dubray wrote:
>Scott Poretsky wrote:
> >
> > In Atlanta, Jerry presented "Automatic Protection Switching Benchmark
> > Terminology".  We had a 15 minute discussion.  The group concluded with
> > Kevin's agreement and affirmation that the proposed work was too broad
> > and MPLS should not be addressed in the same document as SONET APS and
> > RPR.  I am open to the MPLS Protection Methodology being covered under
> > this work item or considered a separate work item.  I guess we can
> > revisit it at the meeting.
> From the Atlanta BMWG minutes:
>"Since protection could happen at various layers (or sub-layers), such as
>SONET or MPLS, there was a discussion on how best to tackle this.  The
>group gravitated to the idea that a single, common terminology document
>with subsequent methodology documents for individual recovery
>mechanisms (e.g., one for MPLS, one for APS, etc.) might be the way to go."
>I believe the current effort proposes to conform to the above notions, no?
>(I.e., single terminology spec; multiple, narrowly focused methodological

bmwg mailing list