Re: [mpls] Note on p2mp ingress and egress protection proposals
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 18 December 2013 17:17 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 EAE0A1AC829 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:17:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 pzGb8Rx74zPw for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCED1A802A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id tp5so10101403ieb.8 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:17:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=s9MR2+NHmbhWX3Hmi2zNiS1VlnuW4hKrcrrxWvv2qd0=; b=Qrv+GdzUYwGG5HJ8AZZ7YPfb3/trm1ZGWchcWtAG3te+DKDsRtmL5dqZf9q/AdiSPq 00DjYW5QLLQLluwfwKwCUEtcRAmY1yMt+MF5eP6hN4tZgGvE5kl+SfcZhBLX13Mhi/cD TxHsDkPeyYnqwL79aynXFu3VrQISB/5/jQCs11SSoPUHWBnzvQ4hny6ZrNYFpIynXrvs Rmij+u2701j1z4tCSe3dxVWb10bUbI+Ek0D/lUYZBW0mZiYgahL8P1l7V+QAqFHP9ddf 4gG9rMszZ6e7ua1uWFKSiOAc82jmib41hiBLR3sw3k5D4hhi9HELt9O4jKx5rge/3pPh ugng==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.48.202 with SMTP id t10mr21709837icf.9.1387387059009; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.78.103 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:17:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B73C6B8@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF1121B73C6B8@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:17:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rfWGX6k3AF7P1ed4X7c_=gBCd4AcnPTi4wL=ejKBJb1Dg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba6e8e88d1876304edd23899"
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:17:43 -0000
Hi Greg, Can you briefly summarize what part of the problem ICCP is solving and why you think it can be improved to offer fast protection? From a quick glance at the first couple pages, it looks like it does the state coordination for the service - but not setting up the transport LSPs?? The RSVP-TE ingress protection draft describes different failure detection modes so that the appropriate action on detecting a failure is clearly agreed before the failure occurs. Handling a failure in a non fast fashion is fairly rivial; for instance, the backup ingress could run BFD to the ingress node's loopback and see if it fails after the network has converged. I do think that there are basic RSVP-TE mechanisms required to set up the backup LSPs, indicate the traffic to insert, and what type of failure detection will be used. Those seem to require standardization for interoperability - not just informational. Perhaps you can more clearly describe what you are proposing? Of course, if you already have a draft written, please just point me at it. Regards, Alia On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Gregory Mirsky < gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > >
- [mpls] Note on p2mp ingress and egress protection… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Note on p2mp ingress and egress protec… Alia Atlas
- Re: [mpls] Note on p2mp ingress and egress protec… Gregory Mirsky