IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] Question regarding SD protection in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu

Yaacov Weingarten <wyaacov@gmail.com> Sun, 08 December 2013 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <wyaacov@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E101ADDD0 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 03:01:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AcC-Z4huyE8U for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 03:01:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7565C1ADF56 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 03:01:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q58so2318998wes.2 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 03:01:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=cxvUxZiy+ydRtfFd3vJBqYTaRUyqFgM8ncqvtug69rk=; b=UfCM16tOnXQDTrEmv/bJXZNGFUXKoNdu8rJIgk1ADmfChVs6xVtUsHyqml7UvKkwex D7nMSiSmesbqeeTvfmg2HbIlsji4osoIolAxofFpq/fMLL7VHAZ3xzVOCQcB+eFTuGzv u53ozd6qmVHJfhF2unIgU8Z/pa7SF89XRbVKr6/Lg2zR1XBO3+4maCS/6yi0n2lA8TOy xoqpXYwV8WjI6i8pjce5lpYi3DqrVkQgfawY4R632Nc6aeirMyKMVDNfr0jChMMQD5Nr NlWlIbdiE2QPcC0tD5tOaAJx9SihXkOxHzOllhnLK7EAPMxAQxT40NJ80k8e70/mrgdX eLFQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.149.175 with SMTP id ub15mr9936564wib.10.1386500497645; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 03:01:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.152.202 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 03:01:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 13:01:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM0WBXWgKMEsAHuZME10QU_u-dwUNMQoqF8JH_71tPYJjg5AVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yaacov Weingarten <wyaacov@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu@tools.ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c38118a4a31404ed03cd1a"
Subject: [mpls] Question regarding SD protection in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 11:01:44 -0000

Hi,

After reading through your draft on the extensions to PSC to support SD
situations, I have a question for clarification -
In your introduction - you state that the method used to detect SD
situations is out-of-scope of the document. Does this mean that PSC is
supposed to be agnostic to the method used for this detection? It should
react only to the indication, similarly to the reaction and relationship to
the method for detecting and declaring a SF situation.
However, when you explain the behavior of the SD protection in section 7.3
you have a paragraph that starts with "If the detection of a SD depends on
the presence of user data packets ..."  that seems to indicate that the
behavior of the system is dependent upon the detection method!
Clarification would be appreciated.

-- 
Thanx and BR,
yaacov

*Still looking for new opportunity*

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email