Re: [mpls] Updated drafts - draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup, draft-kini-mpls-fast-lsp-alert

Dear Autumn,
thank you for adding specific case to our discussion. In my view protecting
segment L10-L1-L2-L3-L4-L5 (e-backup tunnel) is shared by all backup tunnels
that traverse the ring through nodes L10-L9-L8-L7-L6-L5. This e-backup
tunnel is the e-backup tunnels for all working sections/segments (in case of
link and node protection) of an LSP L10-...-L8-..-L5. I'd re-state my
question to authors whether they've considered re-using RSVP-TE objects and
subobjects defined in RFC 4873.  If mechanisms and objects defined in RFC
4873 not sufficient, why RFC 4873 not referenced in the draft Efficient
Facility Backup FRR.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Autumn Liu <autumn.liu@ericsson.com>wrote:

>  Hi Greg,
>
>  +-------L1--------L2---------L3--------L4-------+
>   |                                                      |
>  L10                                                  L5
>   |                                                      |
>  +-------L9--------L8---------L7--------L6-------+
>
> Not all PLRs. Using the diagram in draft as an example.
> Bypass 1 (to protect link between L8 and L7) :
> L8-L9-L10-L1-L2-L3-L4-L5-L6-L7
> Bypass 2 (to protect node failure on L8) : L9-L10-L1-L2-L3-L4-L5-L6-L7
>
> e-backup tunnel L10-L1-L2-L3-L4-L5 can be used instead for both cases
> without getting traffic u-turned.
>
> Regards,
> Autumn
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2010 12:03 PM
> *To:* Autumn Liu
> *Cc:* Julien Meuric; Sriganesh Kini; mpls@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Updated drafts -
> draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup, draft-kini-mpls-fast-lsp-alert
>
> Dear Autumn,
> I'm quite surprised to read your reply to Julien. My understanding of your
> proposal is that all PLRs share the same u-PLR for given ring segment of
> LSP. Please correct me if my understanding is different from authors
> intention.
> I'd like to add to Julien's comment that RFC 4873 seems relevant to your
> solution as well as RFC 4872. And I'd ask the same question as Julien in
> regard to not referencing RFC 4873.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Autumn Liu <autumn.liu@ericsson.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>> draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup describes a mechanism to let the
>> primary LSP be aware of what the bypass LSP for corresponding protected
>> facility. If my understanding is correct, the association mechanism defined
>> in 4872 is used to associate the primary and backup LSPs. This is not good
>> enough for the problem the draft is trying to address since each link/node
>> along the primary LSP may have different bypass LSPs.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Autumn
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Julien Meuric
>> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 10:40 AM
>> To: Sriganesh Kini
>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] Updated drafts -
>> draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup, draft-kini-mpls-fast-lsp-alert
>>
>> Hi Sriganesh.
>>
>> The mechanism described in draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup
>> reminds me of end to end recovery (or more specifically end to end
>> protection), as enabled by RFC 4872. That is all the more similar because
>> the association mechanism is already defined in there, with a dedicated
>> RSVP-TE object. RFC 4872 is Standard Track: is there any rational for not
>> considering it?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Julien
>>
>>
>> Le 26/07/2010 18:59, Sriganesh Kini a écrit :
>> > FYI - These updated version of these drafts were presented today at
>> > IETF78.
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup-01
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kini-mpls-fast-lsp-alert-01
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > - Sri
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > mpls mailing list
>> > mpls@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>
>