IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Term "PSC" in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01

Vivien Sterling <vivien.sterling@gmail.com> Wed, 24 March 2010 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <vivien.sterling@gmail.com>
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 5A65B3A69C6; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.855, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, 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 YzvMljOEMvEI; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDCF3A6A6B; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwi10 with SMTP id 10so3877105pwi.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=PY2zqZuzzd53oNpdRv93vOM/8aoudGTkd7e6F5AOciI=; b=NReRxkVtIEfXHv08VqvkxkpIemQc1BGh4Efqfez9xh6F0EOySehr5n378IcW7JS9Fs veZ2oOqPYVMfjb7HtMTAqpcqCPjpt2EYjUmQS1Z6jUQ3SdmBqbqWDFDLRdP/2rGZstQE g3/HLY94Axg7CmZaPCjv6X4Al/O0WRGoMoqBA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=TgoFp55gI5H41YLPMcgyu7zb0+iKSaoDclraTJX7QJCqjE8Aae9lgnz5J9jTgRcxJa p4C9BUXWls4Uq1+kJdDChynEX03TDDsTcoTCiIMaKGUq1Nl6WYYLb4vjCx5BAkrdChHS lMmL0C6kChlJ2bQLN1hfA4Ja97gg17vquvzBc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.115.64.6 with SMTP id r6mr4066275wak.226.1269422826165; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76C1078FB66E@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
References: <8bf39341003231036w3ceaac70l18ee403c034da761@mail.gmail.com> <8bf39341003240120r554b72j3f6b924475a11d3c@mail.gmail.com> <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76C1078FB66E@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:27:06 +0800
Message-ID: <8bf39341003240227i7fe1e00en9edbe2269b3953cf@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vivien Sterling <vivien.sterling@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e64ca4609f9599048288887d"
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "CCAMP@ietf.org" <CCAMP@ietf.org>, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Term "PSC" in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 24 Mar 2010 09:26:57 -0000

Sasha,

Right. It causes more confusion when GMPLS is used with MPLS-TP.
Could you share more information about the relationship between "PSC" and
"APS protocol" ? Are they exactly the same with only the different naming?
If so, I don't see any good of giving "a new fancy name". Anyway, I might be
out of fashion ;-)

Cheers,
Vivien

2010/3/24 Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>

>  Vivien and all,
>
> AFAIK, PSC stands for “Protection State Coordination” in the MPLS-TP
> parlance (see MPLS-TP Survivability Framework<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk/>)
> – a new fancy name for what has been known as “APS Protocol” in SONET/SDH.
>
>
>
> As you’ve noted, it has a completely different meaning in GMPLS.
>
>
>
> Since GMPLS is going to be used with MPLS-TP, double usage of this acronym
> looks highly problematic.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>      Sasha
>
>
>
> *From:* mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Vivien Sterling
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:21 AM
> *To:* CCAMP@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [mpls] Term "PSC" in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01
>
>
>
> Dear Experts,
>
>
>
> I'm surprised to find the term "PSC" used in this draft. I suppose the
> authors are talking about data plane not control plane, right? Isn't PSC in
> GMPLS elaborated as "Packet Switch Capable" ? It's confusing :-(
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Vivien
>



-- 
Cheers,
Vivien

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email