Re: [mpls-tp] poll on making draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01.txtaworking group document?

Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort@chello.nl> Fri, 13 March 2009 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hhelvoort@chello.nl>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4A83A68F3 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.365
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.227, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vtEgbTRCAl6s for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viefep11-int.chello.at (viefep11-int.chello.at [62.179.121.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10DD3A683D for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge04.upc.biz ([192.168.13.239]) by viefep11-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20090313080530.FUKY29990.viefep11-int.chello.at@edge04.upc.biz>; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:05:30 +0100
Received: from McAsterix.local ([24.132.228.153]) by edge04.upc.biz with edge id SY5U1b02z3KDBhC04Y5WFy; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:05:30 +0100
X-SourceIP: 24.132.228.153
Message-ID: <49BA13C7.7080009@chello.nl>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:05:27 +0100
From: Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort@chello.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <OFBDFE1A2F.4F86859D-ON48257578.0006D37B-48257578.0008C3DB@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OFBDFE1A2F.4F86859D-ON48257578.0006D37B-48257578.0008C3DB@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: MPLS-TPSG15 <ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int>, MPLS-TP <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] poll on making draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01.txtaworking group document?
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: hhelvoort@chello.nl
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:05:01 -0000

Hello, Liu,

You replied:

> xueqin and Huub:
>   1 IMO, make-b4-break means pre-planed path to protected working path. 
> but when the working path have not any fault, there isn't any traffic of 
> working path to be  transported through protected path, it means it 
> isn't necessary to duplicate in the source node.
> only the working path is wrong or fault, the traffic will be transported 
> through the protection path.

You removed too much text, the make-b4-break is applicable when
performing a manual switch MS or forced switch FS. Not for the case there
is a signal fail. For MS and FS both working and protection entity are
intact. Make-b4-break requires in case of 1:1 (and 1:N) protection that the
source sends traffic on both working and protection and THEN the sink
will switch (preferably after confirmation from the source). It is still
possible
that in this case PDUs are lost.
If merging is used at the sink side, duplication of PDUs is possible.

>   2 for 1:N protection,maybe 100%  is considered from the bandwidth of 
> every working path. IMO, even if the working path that need the most 
> bandwidth among N working path  is failed, the protection path also 
> ensure to provide the same bandwidth and QOS for the working traffic. It 
> may not mean all traffic of all failed working path must be restored 
> when more one working paths are failed.

This means that the requiremnt should be reworded: 100% of the first
failed path shall be protected (even though it is illogical to require that
100% of the N entities is protected by a single entity).

Xie xie, Huub.

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...