Re: [mpls] question on draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements

Zhenlong Cui <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com> Tue, 29 July 2014 00:31 UTC

From: Zhenlong Cui <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements@tools.ietf.org" <draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] question on draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements
Thread-Index: Ac+qbHJ5tXHiNxEaR9u2GgVZYwRxqA==
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 00:29:54 +0000
Message-ID: <E703759D9A8E6446BEA7F57C9A91381A739DF8@BPXM18GP.gisp.nec.co.jp>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: ja-JP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Vc6OsqDcu6sTWud98B1kZ5sXlfc
Subject: Re: [mpls] question on draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements
Precedence: list

Hi Loa,

Thank you for your question and repeating on the list.

"n>=m" - it's a typical use case of m:n protection, but isn't a limitation. I apologize for the confusion.
I agree with you that could n be lower, equal or higher than m in the m:n architecture.

We will incorporate your comments to the next version of this draft.

BR,
Zhenlong


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu]
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 9:29 PM
> To: draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements@tools.ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; Cui Zhenlong(崔 珍龍)
> Subject: question on draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements
> 
> Zhenlong,
> 
> draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements in the mpls wg yesterday. I had a question that was not very clear, I
> try to repeat it here.
> 
> In slide 3 you say hat that:
> 
> 
> "In the m:n architecture, the m backup paths(p1,p2)
>   are sharing backup resource for n working paths, as
>   shown in the following example(modeling)."
> 
> In slide 5 you say:
> 
> " The m backup paths should be sharing backup
>    resource for n working paths, where n>=m."
> 
> It is not entirely clear if you say that n being a lower number is an cost optimization or if it is part of the architecture.
> 
>  From a strictly architectural could n be lower, equal or higher than m, i.e. you can protect m working paths with m+x
> protecting paths. Where x can be any positive or negative number (as long as it give you at least some resources for protection).
> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

[mpls] question on draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case… Loa Andersson
Re: [mpls] question on draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-… Zhenlong Cui