[mpls] Note on p2mp ingress and egress protection proposals

Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> Tue, 17 December 2013 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E381AE041 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:11:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YIspmnoicijx for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:11:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020B31AE028 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:11:28 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c618062d-b7f278e000005a8f-04-52b085bc622f
Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.93]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 12.B9.23183.CB580B25; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:11:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:11:14 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Note on p2mp ingress and egress protection proposals
Thread-Index: Ac77SQgjFiRx71WkT86cjtgOzPNpQw==
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:11:13 +0000
Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B73C6B8@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B73C6B8eusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrO7e1g1BBm/WsVjcWrqS1YHRY8mS n0wBjFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGZc+LWcsuC9bsWjdedYGxneSXYycHBICJhITz7ewQ9hiEhfu rWfrYuTiEBI4wiix8coDdghnOaPE/cPzwKrYBIwkXmzsAbNFBJQljkzsZgWxhQVsJW7sWMYE EXeSWHbqGRuErSdx7sYkFhCbRUBVYunxXWA1vAK+EscfdIH1MgJt/n5qDVicWUBc4taT+UwQ FwlILNlznhnCFpV4+fgfK4StLPF9ziMWiPp8iab1t9khZgpKnJz5hGUCo9AsJKNmISmbhaQM Iq4jsWD3JzYIW1ti2cLXzDD2mQOPmZDFFzCyr2LkKC1OLctNNzLYxAgM/WMSbLo7GPe8tDzE KM3BoiTO++Wtc5CQQHpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYOTqkGxl6m7ywm/ssiTevjV01okllk olDBz/eyekprJqee3+KQXbPclj7VfiuyrFno+JkPfOFCG9t4/i1f5nNy7cLtrC+DLkz7GP36 53bZOEsO8Y8HjhQKp7VPMKm6sqL+u2jTtOrYVzmTbOsuJkwKaej4aHkyZaLjK9+Td4TFc38X rS5a/fi+m6pztBJLcUaioRZzUXEiAPf2QZNLAgAA
Subject: [mpls] Note on p2mp ingress and egress protection proposals
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:11:31 -0000

Dear All,
I've been following these proposals for a quite some time and actively participated in the discussion with authors. I do believe that both scenarios represent use of redundancy and hence explicit coordination of Active/Standby roles is required. That certainly would simplify OAM for both cases. And I believe that ICCP is good candidate for coordination within Redundancy Group. Though it would hardly be "fast protection" then.
Hence I believe that all pieces needed to address both scenarios already exist and Informational documents may be needed if anything at all.

                Regards,
                                Greg