Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Nurit,


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:11 PM
To: ext Loa Andersson; Adrian Farrel
Cc: [e-mail]; Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt

The intention is to protect the PST....and switch over the tunneled

Loa > Contained LSPs is equal to tunneled LSP? Correct?

/Loa

This is
LSPs
into a protected PST when there is a fault condition along the working
PST.

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 16:08
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); [e-mail];
Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PST.ppt

Adrian,


Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> I don't think that it should any different.
>
> Good
>
>> So 2nd PE from the left pops the tunnel label and swaps the inner
>> label and then pushes the new tunnel label. Is that what you say?
>
> Yup. Normal LSR behavior.
>
>> Same for the 3rd PE?
>
> Why would this be any different from normal LSR behavior?   :-)

I don't look for or hope for any difference ;).

Assuming there is a PST from the 3rd to the 4th PE also?

What is protected from e.g. 3rd PE to the 4th PE the entire containing
tunnel or the each separate contained tunnel?

/Loa

>
> A
>
>> Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> Loa,
>>>
>>> Why would this be any different from normal LSR behavior?
>>>
>>> P1 sees only the PST labels
>>> PEs pop the PST label and see the e2e label and process it as
normal.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Adrian
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
>>> To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
<[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>uk>; <[e-mail]>nl>;
>>> "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
>>> <[e-mail]>om>; <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:41 PM
>>> Subject: Re: PST.ppt
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nurit,
>>>>
>>>> ok fine, however ...
>>>>
>>>> In your figure will the  2nd and 3rd PEs label swap the label on
>>>> E2E tunnels LSP? Or is the same label showing up at the  4th PE?
>>>>
>>>> /Loa
>>>>
>>>> Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote:
>>>>> Oops......my mistake.......here is the updated figure......
>>>>>
>>>>> The intention was to refer to a SS-PW. Accidentally I referred to
T-PE
>>>>> and S-PE.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can provide also another figure for the MS-PW case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also that the figure is adapted with the new term - PST
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: ext Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 14:21
>>>>> To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>>>> Cc: Adrian Farrel; [e-mail]; Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN -
>>>>> IL/Hod
>>>>> HaSharon); [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: PST question: Was (Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in
Geneva?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Renaming the thread - a little late but anyway ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> at risk asking the obvious, since I'm still reading through the
>>>>>
>>>>> thread?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nurit,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In your figure will the S-PEs label swap the label on
>>>>>
>>>>> E2E tunnels LSP? Or is the same label showing up at the
>>>>>
>>>>> second T-PE?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that we need to find a better name......
>>>>>
>>>>>> What about the figure in the second slide of the attached?
>>>>>
>>>>>> If multiple LSPs transmit via the same physical path in the first
>>>>> domain
>>>>>
>>>>>> and have the same constraints, why cannot we aggregate them and
run
>>>>> OAM
>>>>>
>>>>>> per the aggregated in the first domain?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nurit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: ext Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:20
>>>>>
>>>>>> To: [e-mail]; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: ext Ben Niven-Jenkins; [e-mail]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Huub.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The TC aggregate is not a TC anymore, it should IMHO be referred
>>>>>
>>>>>>> to as a tunnel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is not to say that it is not a useful construct for
reducing
>>>>>> OAM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> overhead.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think (OK, I know) that I suggested we avoid using the TC
language
>>>>> as
>>>>>
>>>>>> I
>>>>>
>>>>>> thought we would find it unhelpful. Perhaps when we meet to go
>>>>>> through
>>>>>
>>>>>> this,
>>>>>
>>>>>> we can draw pictures and work out the language later?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mpls-interop mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Loa Andersson                         email:
[e-mail]
>>>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
>>>> Redback Networks                      phone: [phone]
>>>> An Ericsson Company
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                         email:
[e-mail]
>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
>> Redback Networks                      phone: [phone]
>> An Ericsson Company
>
>


--


Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
Redback Networks                      phone: [phone]
An Ericsson Company
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop