[mpls] Need more clarification for the draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection
Spencer Jackson <Spence.Jackson@pmcs.com> Thu, 16 April 2015 20:26 UTC
Return-Path: <Spence.Jackson@pmcs.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 53D7D1A894E for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.191
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 1-FZvfi7Et3C for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bby1mta02.pmc-sierra.bc.ca (bby1mta02.pmc-sierra.com [216.241.235.117]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D38371B367C for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bby1mta02.pmc-sierra.bc.ca (localhost.pmc-sierra.bc.ca [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F2B48E043D for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.pmcs.com (bby1cas03.pmc-sierra.internal [216.241.227.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bby1mta02.pmc-sierra.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E18C8E033C for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BBYEXM01.pmc-sierra.internal ([169.254.1.160]) by bby1cas03.pmc-sierra.internal ([fe80::6555:ee5c:e637:a304%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:25:54 -0700
From: Spencer Jackson <Spence.Jackson@pmcs.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Need more clarification for the draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection
Thread-Index: AdB4g0iHvI36CTnsQjiBpDo6zDKZjg==
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:25:53 +0000
Message-ID: <5E6B9C6C95BED441A489C1836E08EF93A659FEA2@BBYEXM01.pmc-sierra.internal>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-CA
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [216.241.227.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5E6B9C6C95BED441A489C1836E08EF93A659FEA2BBYEXM01pmcsier_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-internal: True
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/O1grZ9GNZFuPKxBZTS8m-qVtSJE>
Subject: [mpls] Need more clarification for the draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection
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: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:26:01 -0000
Dear authors of draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection_04, Section 5.1 states that RPS requests are required to be sent in both directions. Does this mean on the paired working/protection paths (RcW/RaP or RaW/RcP), or on the clockwise and anti-clockwise protection paths (RcP/RaP)? I presume the former, although this is different from linear APS in which only the protection path carries the coordination protocol. Thanks, Spence -- Spence Jackson Austin Software Center Engineering Manager PMC-Sierra Wireless Infrastructure and Networking Division 6850 Austin Center Blvd., Suite 215, Austin, TX 78731 512-345-3808 x113 (Tel) 512-345-3828 (Fax) 512-589-9681 (Mobile) http://pmcs.com/products/mobile/network_processors/ <http://www.pmc-sierra.com/network-processors/> This message is sent in confidence for the addressee only. It may contain legally privileged information. The contents are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the addressee. Unauthorized recipients are requested to preserve this confidentiality, advise the sender immediately of any error in transmission and delete the email from their systems.
- [mpls] Need more clarification for the draft-chen… Spencer Jackson
- Re: [mpls] Need more clarification for the draft-… Huub van Helvoort