[mpls-tp] Comments on draft-weingarten-mpls-tp-linear-protection-05.txt

Jishnu A <jishnu@india.tejasnetworks.com> Fri, 29 January 2010 02:51 UTC

From: Jishnu A <jishnu@india.tejasnetworks.com>
To: "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>, "yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com" <yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:21:30 +0530
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-weingarten-mpls-tp-linear-protection-05.txt
Thread-Index: AcqgjfWaI4dvGoCvQeWpX1c2emFaUA==
Message-ID: <20674C50F7E3794CA35FDCAD2B0E494006B7C5EB7C@hubmail>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-IN
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-IN
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_20674C50F7E3794CA35FDCAD2B0E494006B7C5EB7Chubmail_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls-tp] Comments on draft-weingarten-mpls-tp-linear-protection-05.txt
Precedence: list

Dear Stewart/Yaacov,
I have few comments on the above draft:


1.       There is an inconsistency between signal fault and signal degrade "Signal fault (0101) or Signal degrade (0100)" mentioned in 4.2.3 and PSC request codes in 4.2.1 where "Signal fault (0110), Signal degrade (0101)".

2.       In 4.3.5 "either Manual switch of Forced switch" should be "either Manual switch or Forced switch"

3.       In 4.3.5, Fpath = 1 at LSR A and Z, in case of MS/FS

4.       In FS or MS case, as per 4.3.5, we are supposed to set Fpath as "1" (if comment 3 above is correct), how do we handle two of the following scenarios:

a)      There is a FS in work path but the working path otherwise is fine

b)      There is a FS in work path and there is a SD along the work path.

5.       Comment above also is valid for LoP in section 4.3.3

Regards,
Jishnu

[mpls-tp] Comments on draft-weingarten-mpls-tp-li… Jishnu A