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:loa@pi.nu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 16:08
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); hhelvoort@chello.nl;
> Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); mpls-interop@ietf.org
> 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" <loa@pi.nu>
>>>> To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
> <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>
>>>> Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>uk>; <hhelvoort@chello.nl>nl>;
>>>> "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
>>>> <yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com>om>; <mpls-interop@ietf.org>
>>>> 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:loa@pi.nu]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 14:21
>>>>>> To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>>>>> Cc: Adrian Farrel; hhelvoort@chello.nl; Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN -
>>>>>> IL/Hod
>>>>>> HaSharon); mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>>>>> 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:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:20
>>>>>>> To: hhelvoort@chello.nl; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>>>>>> Cc: ext Ben Niven-Jenkins; mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> Mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Loa Andersson                         email:
> loa.andersson@redback.com
>>>>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
>>>>> Redback Networks                      phone: +46 8 632 77 14
>>>>> An Ericsson Company
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>> Loa Andersson                         email:
> loa.andersson@redback.com
>>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
>>> Redback Networks                      phone: +46 8 632 77 14
>>> An Ericsson Company 
>>
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
Mpls-interop@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop