Re: [mpls] MPLS ring protection reconsidered ??

[weiqiang cheng <[e-mail]>]

Hi  Loa and Kireeti,

Thank you very much for your constructive discussion.

As thoroughly discussed in previous IETF meetings, we were also going to
ask for WG adoption of the draft-cheng.

I agree with you that the two drafts solve different issues. We also prefer
not to merge them.

We suggest that the WG may consider to adopt both drafts in Dallas

B.R.

Weiqiang Cheng
Research Institute of China Mobile
Department of Network Technology



2015-03-18 9:02 GMT+08:00 Kireeti Kompella <[e-mail]>:

> Hi Loa,
>
> Thanks for your mail!
>
> I’m all for revisiting the question.  I was going to ask for WG adoption
> of RMR.
>
> If the draft-cheng authors ask the same, I have no objection.  However, I
> think there are quite a few differences between the two drafts, and don’t
> think that merging them is the technically best solution.
>
> Kireeti.
>
> > On Mar 16, 2015, at 15:23 , Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > (taking my chair hat off for a while, i.e. this should not be
> > read as a chair directive, just a bit of mumbling that comes out
> > thinking about how to progress documents.)
> >
> > As far back s the 73rd IETF in Minneapolis John and Adrian made
> > a report on "Requirements for Ring Protection in MPLS-TP". The
> > conclusions were that we could do topology specific protection
> > solutions if the benefits are big enough.
> >
> > Such solutions need to meet the same requirements as linear
> > protection and it has to be show that it can't be done by linear
> > protection only.
> >
> > At that time we did not see that there were things that would not
> > be as readily done by the linear protection being specified at that
> > time.
> >
> > Today we have to drafts that address ring topologies, one
> draft-kompella-mpls-rmr addresses Resilient MPLS Rings in an MPLS-TE
> > environment. The other draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection
> > addresses protection in an MPLS-TP environment.
> >
> > Both recognizes that ring topologies are very common and that very
> > efficient mechanism for keeping traffic flowing in case of failures
> > are possible to design. Sometime far better than what is the case if
> > the actual ring topologies are view as a linear topology,
> >
> > The first document (draft-kompella- ) looks primarily on the operations
> > within a single ring and how fast and simple mechanisms for protection
> > can be deployed. A ring topology is a very common deployment scenario.
> > While, the draft-kompella from a solutions point is somewhat orthogonal
> > to draft-cheng, it does also discuss the dynamic control plane for mpls
> > ring, including auto-discovery and signaling. It seems that there are
> > opportunities for co-operation between the two drafts in this area.
> >
> > The other (draft-cheng- ) looks at what is called MPLS shared ring, i.e.
> > a rather high number can shared the same path around the ring, and all
> > traffic can be protected by a single operation.
> > Another aspect of the shared tunnel is that if part of the ring
> > (typically 2 nodes and one link) are part of more than one ring. It
> > becomes possible to protect against more than one failure.
> >
> > Maybe it is time to revisit the question and see if we want to adopt
> > working group documents for the two scenarios outlined above.
> >
> > /Loa
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> > Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> > Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>