Re: [mpls] [PWE3] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP Linear Protection Applicability to MS-PW"

Hi Binny,

The assumption is that lower-layer protection (LSP or link protection)
will take care of single-segment failures not affecting S-PEs. The
hold-off mechanism defined in [LinearProt], when properly configured,
prevents MS-PW switchover in this scenario. As you say, this is because
lower-layer protection is more efficient so it should be used when
possible.

Regards,

Daniel

From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
binny jeshan
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:58 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP Linear
Protection Applicability to MS-PW"

Hello authors,

I have a generic question on the co-existence of PW monitoring at the
MS-PW level (PSMEG) and the individual segment level (PMEG). Firstly, I
believe there is no such restriction on having co-existence in
monitoring these independently..

Now lets say if a monitored mid segment (a simple PMEG) of a 5 segment
MSPW fails, its quite possible that the PSMEG also detects it at the
endpoints. Now, what would determine the switching priority? Wouldn't it
become costlier if the PSMEG does a MS-PW level switching? Instead, one
could prefer to switch to a backup path at a segment level itself. Is
this addressed?

Thanks,
Binny.

On 13 June 2011 18:13, Alexander Vainshtein
<Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:

Dear Ma and all,

Adding the PWE3 WG to my response.

The PW redundancy mechanism supports linear protection of MS-PWs as one
of many additional application use cases:

Appendix A of the PW redundancy Bit draft
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit/?include
_text=1>  describes 5 application uses cases in addition to MS-PW with
single-homed CEs (which is listed there as use case 5).

And it is equally applicable to IP/MPLS and MPLS - with the help of  the
Static PW Status Messages draft
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status/?inclu
de_text=1> ( if, for whatever reason, you do not want  to, or cannot,
use RFC 4447 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4447/?include_text=1>
).

Hence I doubt the need for yet another PW redundancy  mechanism with
narrow scope of applicability.

Regards,

     Sasha

From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ma.yuxia@zte.com.cn
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:25 PM
To: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP Linear Protection
Applicability to MS-PW"

Hi all, 

The linear protection mechanism for LSP and PW(including MS-PW) should
be the same and it is valuable to describe it clearly. 

BTW, there is a typo, it is "T-PE Z" instead of "T-PE B". 

 " 
  Figure 1 illustrates such a scenario, where two MS-PWs are 
  established between T-PE A and T-PE B, over S-PEs 1-2 and 3-4 
  respectively. Each PW segment is established over an LSP (e.g. PW- 
  s12 over LSP12). 
 " 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Cohn 
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 4:14 PM
To: mpls
Subject: Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP Linear Protection
Applicability to MS-PW"
Importance: High

Hi MPLSers,

I uploaded "MPLS-TP Linear Protection Applicability to MS-PW" I-D
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cohn-mpls-tp-pw-protection-00)

The abstract goes:

One of the requirements of the MPLS transport profile [RFC 5654] is
to provide linear protection for transport paths, which include both
LSPs and PWs. The functional architecture described in [SurvivFwk]
is applicable to both LSP and PWs, however [LinearProt] does not
explicitly describe mechanisms for PW protection in MPLS-TP.

This document extends the applicability of the linear protection
mechanism described in [LinearProt] to MPLS-TP segmented PWs 
(MS-PWs) as defined in [RFC 6073].

Could you please review it and send feedback to the mailing list or
directly to the author? 

Looking forward to your feedback, 

Daniel 

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI
Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform
us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies
thereof. 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3