Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05

[Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]>]

Hello Yimin,

Thank you for your review.
Here is our response: in-line [Huub] on behalf of the authors.

Best regards. Huub.

======
On 10-07-15 03:37, Yimin Shen wrote:

Dear authors, chairs, and WG

 

I’ve been asked by the WG chairs to review draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05 for WG adoption. Overall, I think the draft is trying to address a valid MPLS-TP scenario by using a promising solution. However, I have the following comments and questions  for sections 1 to 4, which I would like to request the authors to answer and clarify.

 

1. Section 2.1 – Recovery of multiple failures

• This is misleading to me. The draft seems to only be able to handle a single failure per ring, rather than multiple failures per ring. This may need some clarification.

[Huub] Multiple failures means that more than one link or node in the ring can fail. Protection can still be performed
in the "islands" created in this way. A node failure is in fact the same as adjacent link failures.
We can provide more clarification. 

 

2. I’d like to suggest to change term “exit node” to “egress node”.

[Huub] OK.

 

3. Section 4.1 - The ring tunnel layer.

 

• Given a ring of N nodes, this layer would consist of 4xN ring tunnels. The draft is a little light on the provisioning and management aspects of this layer, while pushing a lot of complexity to this layer.

[Huub] clarifying text can be added. We can add a section describing provisioning the ring-nodes.

• Each node is traversed by many tunnels. How does it know whether a tunnel is working or protecting,  and whether a tunnel is CW or AW ? How does it associate a working tunnel with a protecting tunnel (to the same egress node, but opposite in direction) ?

[Huub] each node knows this because of the ring-map which contains this information.

• When an ingress node needs a working tunnel to a particular egress node, how does choose between the CW  tunnel and the AW tunnel, especially when one is significantly longer  (i.e. of higher cost) than the other ?

[Huub] from the ring-map the ingress node knows what the shortest path is and then decides to take the CW or the AW tunnel.

 

4. The draft describes 4 tunnels (CW, AW, CP, AP) per egress node ? Is it possible to use only 2 tunnels (i.e. CW and AW) and have them protect each other ?

[Huub] mixing working and protecting traffic in a single tunnel would make the RPS protocol more complex.
An egress node cannot make the distinction.

 

5. Section 4.3.2 -- Short wrapping vs. “traditional wrapping”

 

• Does “traditional wrapping” refer to the scenario in section 4.3.1 ?

[Huub] No it doesn't, section 4.3.1 explains wrapping for link failure and node failure.
[Huub] the description of traditional wrapping is in the first paragraph of section 4.3.2, more clarification can be added.

• The 4.3.2 mode seems superior to the 4.3.1 mode in all aspects. If so, would there be any value to keep 4.3.1 mode.

[Huub] 4.3.1 explains wrapping methodology, its application is described in 4.3.2.

• In 4.3.2 mode, CW tunnel ==CP tunnel and AW tunnel == AP tunnel in path topology, correct ? If so, you could reduce the number of tunnels per egress node from 4 to 2 (as comment [4] above), correct ?

[Huub] No, not correct. During a protection switch CW tunnel ==> AP tunnel and AW tunnel ==> CP tunnel.

 

6. Section 4.3.3

 

• This is equivalent to “global repair” in MPLS. However, why does the ingress node switch traffic from CW tunnel to AP tunnel instead of AW tunnel ? A working tunnel should be “better” than a protecting tunnel to permanently carry traffic.

[Huub] to operate properly ring protection switching has to be revertive, after repair the traffic should be switched back to working (shortest path)

7. Section 4.4

 

• I’m not sure how label swap would work on an interconnection node, as the draft describes it. In Fig-12, in normal state, F receives a packet from ring-1; The top label X is a tunnel to the node group; The next label Y is the service LSP. So, F pops label X, and “ the label used for working ring tunnel R2cW_I will be pushed based on the inner label” (i.e. label Y). How could F have the knowledge about the service LSP, its label Y, and its egress node, etc ?

[Huub] the ring-map has to take care of this.

• I may have more questions to follow after the above…

 

Regards,

 

Yimin Shen

Juniper Networks

-- 
*****************************************************************
              请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样