Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi.

Let me try to rephrase what I've understood (correct me if I'm wrong).

Your intend is to do segment recovery (RFC 4873) on a group of contained LSPs (from a PST1 to PST2) and NOT e2e recovery (RFC 4872) on PSTs, right? Would it be consistent with the procedure applying segment recovery to a piece of my PST? I fear it might be a mess in some cases, for instance when having a PST head end node (recovering at LSP level) being also a segment branching node (recovering at PST level)... 8-|

Regards,

Julien


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux

John,

I think we are indeed down to the point of having to answer the question
you raise:
Should the PSTs be protected or not?
My understanding is the following:
PSTs are entities used to monitor the liveliness and performance
of the LSPs they tunnel.
PSTs do so by in fact monitoring their own liveliness/performance.
In case a defect occurs the recovery is done at the LSP level.

As such my understanding was that PSTs need not be protected
but if my understanding is incorrect and/or we decide they should
be, I am fine :-)

-m

Drake, John E a écrit :
> Martin,
> 
> It will be some combination of new work, RFC 4873, the LSP hierarchy RFC, and the end to end recovery RFC.  As I indicated in a crossing e-mail, perhaps I am incorrect in saying that PST protection switching is required for MPLS TP, in which case we wouldn't work on it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>>
>> Nurit, John,
>>
>> so as to make sure I correctly understand your aim, do you 
>> plan to use rfc4873 to establish the second PST?
>> thanks
>>
>> -m
>>
>> Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) a écrit :
>>> You could say the same ting for PWs that are transmitted via LSPs. 
>>> You do not protect the LSP, there is no protection and 
>> working LSPs but there are working tunneled PWs and protection PWs. 
>>> I think we have working PST and protection PST to protect 
>> the LSPs that are tunneled via the PSTs......
>>> I hope this clarifies......
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ext Martin Vigoureux 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 17:45
>>> To: Drake, John E
>>> Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); [e-mail]; 
>>> Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> ok, then what I am saying is that there should not be a notion of 
>>> working and protecting PST.
>>> There should be working LSPs tunnelled in a PST and protecting LSPs 
>>> tunnelled in some other PST but I do not believe that this 
>> second PST 
>>> should be the protecting of the first.
>>> Hope this clarifies.
>>>
>>> -m
>>>
>>> Drake, John E a écrit :
>>>> Martin,
>>>>
>>>> There could be working and protecting LSPs as well, but 
>> that would be completely transparent to the PSTs, and the 
>> operation of the PST protection switch would be completely 
>> transparent to the contained LSPs.  I.e., if the working PST 
>> fails and the contained LSPs are moved to the protecting PST, 
>> none of the contained LSPs would be aware of the move and none 
>> of them would initiate a protection switch to their protecting LSPs.
>>>> The PST endpoints need to be aware of the individual LSPs, 
>> so there would need to be some coordination between them as 
>> the set of contained LSPs changes.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 6:55 AM
>>>>> To: Drake, John E
>>>>> Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); 
>> [e-mail]; 
>>>>> Weingarten,Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt
>>>>>
>>>>> John,
>>>>>
>>>>> if I read you correctly does this mean that the switch-over is 
>>>>> performed at the PST level and not anymore at the LSP 
>> level (and so 
>>>>> that there are no more working and protecting LSPs, only 
>> LSPs which 
>>>>> are transparently switched when the PST that tunnels them is 
>>>>> switched from primary to secondary)?
>>>>>
>>>>> -m
>>>>>
>>>>> Drake, John E a écrit :
>>>>>> Martin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a working PST, a protecting PST, and a set of one
>>>>> or more LSPs (or PWs).  When the working PST is up, it 
>> contains the 
>>>>> set of one or more LSPs (or PWs).  When the working PST is 
>> down, the 
>>>>> protecting PST contains the set of one or more LSPs (or PWs).
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Martin Vigoureux 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 6:42 AM
>>>>>>> To: Drake, John E
>>>>>>> Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); 
>> [e-mail]; 
>>>>>>> Weingarten,Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand but I do not understand the need for dual 
>> protection 
>>>>>>> (i.e. having working and protecting LSPs and in addition 
>> a working 
>>>>>>> and a protecting PST) I think we only need working and 
>> protecting 
>>>>>>> LSPs and PSTs around them. The difference may be subtle 
>> but may be 
>>>>>>> not in terms of operations.
>>>>>>> By reading working and protecting I implicitly read that 
>> a switch 
>>>>>>> over will happen between the two and I guess we want to 
>> swith LSPs 
>>>>>>> from a PST to another one but we do not need (want) to 
>> switch a PST 
>>>>>>> to another PST. Do we?
>>>>>>> If I am not clear enough, let me know. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Drake, John E a écrit :
>>>>>>>> I think there would be a working and a protecting PST, both
>>>>>>> with an inband OAM channel.  When the working PST is up, it will 
>>>>>>> contain a set of one or more LSPs (or PWs).  When the 
>> working PST 
>>>>>>> fails, the set of one or more LSPs is moved to the 
>> protecting PST.
>>>>>>>> Presumably, the inband OAM channel on the working PST is
>>>>>>> used to detect its failure and the inband OAM channel on the 
>>>>>>> protecting PST is used to coordinate the movement of the 
>> LSPs (or 
>>>>>>> PWs) to it.
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Martin Vigoureux 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 6:15 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Weingarten,Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod 
>>>>>>>>> HaSharon)
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nurit,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> clarification question :-)
>>>>>>>>> is the intent to protect the PST or to protect to LSPs and
>>>>>>> be able to
>>>>>>>>> run OAM (at large) on segments of the protecting LSPs once
>>>>>>> the switch
>>>>>>>>> over has been done?
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -m
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> The intention is to protect the PST....and switch over the
>>>>>>> tunneled
>>>>>>>>>> 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: +46 
>> 8 632 77 14
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop