Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt

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 
> 
> 

-- 

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