Re: [mpls-tp] Query regarding draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01

[Mukund Mani <[e-mail]>]

Hi

Small correction.. with reference to the mail below..
Actually meant if 1+1 uni-directional protection switching is applicable for
PW..?

With Regards
Mukund

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Mukund Mani <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Yaacov
>
> Have a small question w.r.t draft "*draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01".
> *
>
> Wanted to know if this draft applies for Pseudowires as well.. Will the
> same PSC mechanism be used for PseudoWire protection switching also...?
>
> There are some drafts eg"draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-03" in the PWE3 group
> which talk about PW protection.
> **
> Quoting the Survivability Framewrok which specifies the following:
>
>    Pseudowires provide end-to-end connectivity over the MPLS-TP network
>    and may comprise a single pseudowire segment, or multiple segments
>    "stitched" together to provide end-to-end connectivity.
>
>    The pseudowire may, itself, require a level of protection, in order
>    to meet the service-level guarantees of its SLA.  This protection
>    could be provided by the MPLS-TP LSPs that support the pseudowire, or
>    could be a feature of the pseudowire layer itself.
>
>    As indicated above, the functional architecture described in this
>    document applies to both LSPs and pseudowires.  *However, the recovery
>    mechanisms for pseudowires are for further study and will be defined
>    in a separate document by the PWE3 working group.
> *
>
>
> Aside from this generally we talk about PW's as bidirectional.. Would 1:1
> unidirectional protection switching be applicable for PW as well?
> **
> Looking forward for your reply...
>
> Thanks
>
> With Regards
> Mukund
>