Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Fwd: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority-00.txt

[Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]>]

Yaacov, hi,

You wrote:

> While I understand (and to a certain extent support) the purpose of this
> document, I am not sure that the note that you are proposing in Section
> 2 of the document really clarifies the definitions of what are the
> priorities.

OK, I hope you mean that more clarification is needed for when
the priority FS over SF-P or SF-P over FS are used.

> Based on the Rosetta Stone document - a "Communication Channel" is any
> logical connection between NEs that may be used for management or
> control plane applications. In theory this includes (to my
> understanding) any use of the GACH as defined for MPLS-TP (e.g. any OAM
> functionality).

I think I understand the confusion.
I wanted to make a difference between protection switching
applications that rely on a control plane, and protection
switching applications that rely on an in-band protocol
which fate shares with the protection path.

> Your note states: "For 1+1 protection schemes (which do not use a
> communication channel)" -
>
>   * what are these? Is there a protection scheme for MPLS-TP that do not
>     use a communication channel - for example for CC or CV messages? If
>     you meant to say that they are not dependent upon a coordination
>     protocol (similar to the statement in the ITU documentation that
>     refers to APS) then I suggest that you clearly state this.

As I explained above I wanted to differentiate between a coordination
protocol that uses a control plane, and one that fate shares with the
protection path.

>   * However, are you adding a blanket statement that 1+1 protection
>     schemes do not use a coordination protocol? This is news to me,
>     since to the best of my recollection both ITU Ethernet Linear
>     Protection and RFC6378 define support for 1+1 protection, don't they?

This was not my intention.

> Might I suggest that you adhere more closely to the language of the ITU
> definition and state that if a coordination protocol is being used then
> SF-P priority is higher than FS.

I will try to captuture this more clearly.

> Hope this helps,

It did, thanks, Huub.


=======
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Huub van Helvoort
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello MPLS,
>
>     I noticed that I did not send this notification to the MPLS
>     list at the same time as I sent it to CCAMP.
>
>     This concerns/addresses priorities in linear protection.
>
>     Best regards, Huub.
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-__priority-00.txt
>     Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:22:06 +0200
>     From: Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     Reply-To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     To: CCAMP <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>     Hello CCAMP,
>
>     Based on the messages on the MPLS list:
>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-__archive/web/mpls/current/__msg09913.html
>     <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg09913.html>
>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-__archive/web/mpls/current/__msg09916.html
>     <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg09916.html>
>
>     I have created and uploaded the draft below.
>     Comments are appreciated.
>
>     Best regards, Huub.
>
>     -------- Original Message --------
>     Subject: I-D Action: draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-__priority-00.txt
>     Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 01:01:39 -0700
>     From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Reply-To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
>     A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>     directories.
>
>
>              Title           : Update Forced Switch Priority
>              Author(s)       : Huub van Helvoort
>              Filename        : draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-__priority-00.txt
>              Pages           : 4
>              Date            : 2013-07-12
>
>     Abstract:
>         This document clarifies the definitions related to Manual Switch and
>         Forced Switch. This document updates RFC 4427.
>
>
>     The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/__doc/draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-__priority <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority>
>
>     There's also a htmlized version available at:
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/__draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-__priority-00
>     <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-helvoort-ccamp-fs-priority-00>
>
>
>     Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>     ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-__drafts/
>     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     I-D-Announce mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/i-d-announce
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce>
>     Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.__html
>     <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>
>     or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/__1shadow-sites.txt
>     <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt>
>
>
>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     mpls mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/mpls
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanx and BR,
> yaacov
>
> /Still looking for new opportunity/


-- 
*****************************************************************
               请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样