Re: [mpls] a question about draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-01

[[e-mail]]

Jeong-dong,
I don't completely understand your describles. 
in former part, you think the protection locking message is not a reply 
message ,but is
a originator of request message.
while in your last sentence. the Message is not originated by a SEN.
so I can't see this locking message is originator of Locking request 
message or only a reply 
to protection switching Request message arrived at the SEN？
if it is the former, SEN as MIP of a path, it can't actively initiate a 
request messgae.
else if it  is only the reply to protection switching request message. 
IMO, for the following
example：
 
          A------B------C  D------E------F 
            \   LPD1   /        \   LPD3  / 
              \            /            \            / 
               P-----Q----------R-----S 
              /                                   \ 
             /           LPD2                \ 
            /                                        \ 
           G--------------H---------------J 

 when a path G-H-J have failure, end node G firstly initiate a protection 
switching event message to 
 SEN node P, R. if SEN node P,R would relpy to the protection switching 
event, the Reply message(locking
 message) should be sent to the end nodes G or J of LPD2, can't be sent to 
the end nodes D,F of LPD3;

 my understanding to your opinions may be wrong?

  best regards
  liu
 






"Ryoo, Jeong-dong" <[e-mail]> 
2010-07-30 18:22
请答复 给
"Ryoo, Jeong-dong" <[e-mail]>


收件人
<[e-mail]>, "Taesik Cheung" <[e-mail]>
抄送
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
主题
RE: Re: [mpls] a question about draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-01






Liu,
 
What you described in your email is aligned with the operations stated in 
the MPLS-TP mesh protection draft.
The protection locking message is not exactly a reply message, which goes 
to the originator of the request message.
It is certainly destined to other nodes, which share the common facility,
This is an additional function of SEN to provide the shared mesh 
protection.
What I would like to emphasize is that this message is not originated by a 
SEN (a MIP of the path for linear protection) if there is no protection 
switching event message arrived at the SEN,
 
Best regards,
 
Jeong-dong 
==============================================
Jeong-dong Ryoo, Ph.D.
Principal Member of Research Staff
Network Research Department
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) 
Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
==============================================

-----Original Message-----
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
From Date: 2010-07-30 PM 6:21:08
To: "Taesik Cheung" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" 
<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, 
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] a question about 
draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-01


Taesik 
thank you for replying .but I don't agree your opinions 
According to your describles in the draft. I think the protection locking 
message isn't  a response to the protection state change notification 
message sent from a MEP. 
and it is activley generate a Locking Request message for the SEN node. 
for example. the following figure : 
          A------B------C  D------E------F 
            \   LPD1   /        \   LPD3  / 
              \            /            \            / 
               P-----Q----------R-----S 
              /                                   \ 
             /           LPD2                \ 
            /                                        \ 
           G--------------H---------------J 
a. Node G detects the failure, and initiates the linear protection 
      switching for the failed working path G-H-J; 

   b. At the same time, node G generates the protection switching event 
      message saying that a protection switching event happened to node 
      P and R, which are SENs for J->H->G. 

   c. The SEN P compares the protection switching priority of LPD2 with 
      that of LPD1. In this example, as the priority of LPD1 is higher 
      than LPD2, SEN P does not take an action to node A. 
      The SEN R compares the protection switching priority of LPD2 with 
      that of LPD3. In this example, as the priority of LPD3 is lower 
      than LPD2, SEN R sends the protection locking message requesting 
      LoP to node D.(if the Locking message is a response to the 
protection 
      state change , I think the Locking message should send to Node G , 
      not node D. because at the time there is no protection state change 
for LPD2 . 
     Node D can't send any state change request to SEN node R firstly. 
     do you think so?  ) 

   d. Node D takes the protection locking message as an input to the 
      linear protection switching, and follows the linear protection 
      switching procedure to process the end-to-end LoP command 

 maybe my understanding be wrong? 

  best regards 
   liu 
      

 
 




"Taesik Cheung" <[e-mail]> 
?件人:  [e-mail] 
2010-07-30 16:45 

?答? ?
Taesik Cheung <[e-mail]>



收件人
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> 
抄送
[e-mail], [e-mail] 
主?
Re: [mpls] a question about draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-01


 
 




Hi Liu, 
 
Thank you for the comments. 
Please see in-line. 
 
Regards, 
Taesik 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
From Date: 2010-07-30 PM 5:06:30
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: a question about draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-01


hi, 
today I reviewed your this draft, I have a few questions for mesh 
protection 
1 in section 3, In my mind, there is a sentence : In both cases, 1:1 or 
1+1 protection may be used. 
  if there use 1+1 protection for each working path. it is no necessary to 
apply mesh protection. 
  beacause the bandwidth resource of protection is equal to the sum of 
bandwidth resource of all 
  protected path. so I think 1+1 protection should not be used in the mesh 
protection. 
  do you think so? 
[Taesik] Yes, if 1+1 protection is used, shared mesh protection is not 
necessary. The sentence is just generic one. Right after the sentence, we 
described that if 1:1 protection is used, the segment PQR can be shared by 
two protection paths. 

2 about the Shared node SEN will send the protection locking message 
requesting 
     LoP to the end node of protected LSP. IMO, as SEN node is MIP of the 
protected 
     LSP , it can't generate unsolicit OAM packet to send other node. so 
how to generate 
   the protection locking message requesting LOP in the SEN node ? 
[Taesik] The protection locking message is a response to the protection 
state change notification message sent from a MEP. It is similar to 
LTM/LTR or Lock Intruct / Lock Report relationship. 
  

 Maybe i miss something important? 
 thank you 

 best regards 
 liu 

 
    
 
 



--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is 
solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is 
confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and 
are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to 
others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of 
the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the 
individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam 
system.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is 
solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is 
confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and 
are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to 
others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of 
the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the 
individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam 
system.





--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.