Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Loa,

You can protect a tunnel or an end-to-end LSP
However, halfway down a tunnel, you can only protect the tunnel (because you 
can't see the content)

A
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[e-mail]>om>; 
<[e-mail]>nl>; "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" 
<[e-mail]>om>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:08 PM
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