Return-Path: X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09A228C133; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 02:16:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2QI-SC4URmtK; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 02:15:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6C53A6983; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 02:15:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oA8AG27q013634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:16:02 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id oA8AFsbl032166; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:16:02 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.25]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:15:57 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB7F2D.EEF3C666" Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:15:52 +0100 Message-ID: <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326402DCC16A@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft on signal degradation Thread-Index: ActrwRjaEgtBose/SIy46W7iXu1djQFRgbQAAAAh9EADh+I30AAAtJRg References: <4CB736C0.9020602@pi.nu><001b01cb7107$620b7960$26226c20$@olddog.co.uk> <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326402CA3F7B@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net> From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" To: "ext Shah, Himanshu" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2010 10:15:57.0205 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF1C3450:01CB7F2D] Subject: Re: [mpls] draft on signal degradation X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:16:04 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CB7F2D.EEF3C666 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Himanshu, Thanks for the information. Just to make it clear: * Orckit and KDDI came out with a draft on SD, which is detected in the link level and notified to the edges of the paths that are affected from this event (exactly as "Alarm Reporting", AKA AIS). IMO, the draft still needs to be worked on... to address questions that were on the second slide....and the good question came from George.=20 o There were some discussions on the mailing list, with some confusion between SD detected on the link/phy layer and can be detected in any condition (w or w/o traffic on the path) and SD on the path level cause because of congestion...- this can be detected only when there is traffic with similar pattern as the protected path. Many would even not consider this as SD.....=20 * We worked on the survivability framework and were asked by the chairs to show if there is any "impact" of SD discussed in the list on the framework - to this the answer is No! there is no impact. The framework already assumes multiple events as triggers to the recovery action (what is called as "elements of control). It was also indicated in the slides what are not considered to be the role of the survivability framework.... * From linear protection point of view, some questions were raised and I have put them on the second slide. The simplest way to handle this if SD indication is an absolute indication (exactly as SF), but again there were some discussions and arguments on the mailing list and I tried to summarize these and put questions on the second slide. I think it is important we agree on the resolution for these questions.=20 Best regards, Nurit =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: ext Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com]=20 Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:46 AM To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org Cc: Linda Dunbar Subject: draft on signal degradation =20 Hi Nurit - About 2 years ago, Raj Jain (Linda Dunbar and I as co-authors) presented similar work proposal to IEEE, perhaps you attended that meeting.=20 =20 We could not convince IEEE to consider Signal Degradation as a criteria for connectivity fault. Same concerns - right thresholds, durations, hold downs, ripples how far up and out, etc etc. =20 FYI - as another data point. =20 /himanshu =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CB7F2D.EEF3C666 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Himanshu,

Thanks for the information.

Just to make it clear:

·         Orckit and KDDI = came out with a draft on SD, which is detected in the link level and notified to = the edges of the paths that are affected from this event (exactly as = "Alarm Reporting", AKA AIS). IMO, the draft still needs to be worked = on… to address questions that were on the second slide….and the good = question came from George.

o    There were some = discussions on the mailing list, with some confusion between SD detected on the = link/phy layer and can be detected in any condition (w or w/o traffic on the = path) and SD on the path level cause because of congestion…- this can be = detected only when there is traffic with similar pattern as the protected path. = Many would even not consider this as SD…..

·         We worked on the survivability framework and were asked by the chairs to show if there is = any "impact" of SD discussed in the list on the framework - to = this the answer is No! there is no impact. The framework = already assumes multiple events as triggers to the recovery action (what is = called as "elements of control). It was also indicated in the slides what are = not considered to be the role of the survivability = framework….

·         From linear = protection point of view, some questions were raised and I have put them on the = second slide. The simplest way to handle this if SD indication is an = absolute indication (exactly as SF), but again there were some discussions and = arguments on the mailing list and I tried to summarize these and put questions on the = second slide. I think it is important we agree on the resolution for these = questions.

Best regards,

Nurit

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com]
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:46 AM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); mpls@ietf.org; = mpls-tp@ietf.org
Cc: Linda Dunbar
Subject: draft on signal degradation

 

Hi Nurit -

About 2 years ago, Raj Jain (Linda Dunbar and I = as co-authors)

presented similar work proposal to IEEE, perhaps = you attended that

meeting.

 

We could not convince IEEE to consider Signal = Degradation as

a criteria for connectivity fault. Same concerns = - right thresholds,

durations, hold downs, ripples how far up and = out, etc etc.

 

FYI - as another data point.

 

/himanshu

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01CB7F2D.EEF3C666--