Re: [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection

[Rui Costa <[e-mail]>]

Hello,	

1. RFC1958 states "If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem [...]".	

2. This draft looks quite different from G.841's sections about rings (or G.8132.1 draft), IMHO. If there's a problem with the liaison accessibility, perhaps the expired comparison http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yang-mpls-tp-ring-protection-analysis helps.	

3. Could the authors explain, remembering the RFC1958 quote above ("Internet context or ELSEWHERE"), what's the benefit of this draft versus existing G.841 (Jul/1995)/G.8132.1 draft/draft-helvoort-mpls-tp-ring-protection-switching?	

4. What is the benefit of RFC6378 (Feb2012) versus existing G.841(Jul/1995)/G.8131.1 draft (again, remembering RFC1958...)? What new brings PSC versus APS?	

5. Why did we approve RFC6670, essentially saying "1 standard's better than 2", but create 2 completely new protection standards, alternate to options architecturally similar to those we have in the field for almost 20years?	

6. Why isn't the intersection of the authors of this draft, RFCs 6378 and 6670, the empty set?	

Regards,	
Rui	


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Sent: terça-feira, 2 de Outubro de 2012 18:12
To: ext D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection

Dear Alesandro,
Thank you for pointing to R.100 ("Recovery techniques in a ring SHOULD be identical (or as similar
        as possible) to those in general transport networks to simplify
        implementation and operations.  However, this MUST NOT override
        any other requirement."). 
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection supports the two protection architecture mechanisms for ring topologies, based on SDH specifications [G.841], that have been proposed in various forums to perform recovery of a topological ring network - "wrapping" and "steering". 
So it will be good to understand better your technical concern on R100. 
Best regards,
Nurit


-----Original Message-----
From: ext D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 5:10 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; [e-mail]
Subject: R: [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection

Dear Nurit,
There are many points we can discuss about the proposed draft but let me point out initially just R100, RFC5654.

Best regards,
Alessandro
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecom Italia
Alessandro Gerardo D'Alessandro
Transport Innovation
Via Reiss Romoli, 274 - 10148 Torino
phone:  [phone]
mobile: [phone]
fax: [phone]


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Inviato: martedì 2 ottobre 2012 16:04
A: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo; Loa Andersson
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; [e-mail]
Oggetto: RE: [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection

Alessandro and others that supported the below, Your statement below does not provide any indication nor technical justification which requirements are not addressed and why do you think they are not addressed.....
Hence it is impossible to refer to or consider such LC comment as such, unless you provide technical arguments that we can discuss and consider. 
Best regards,
Nurit


-----Original Message-----
From: ext D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 2:27 PM
To: Loa Andersson
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; [e-mail]
Subject: R: [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection

Do not support

According to the optimization criteria for ring protection specified in Section 2.5.6.1 in RFC5654, the MPLS-TP ring protection should be optimized for simplification of the ring operation and the resources consumption around the ring. It is not the case of the proposed solution.
It is actually simply an applicability statement of a linear protection mechanism but it cannot be consider a solution that addresses the requirements for protection of ring topologies for Multi-Protocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) as specified in RFC5654.

Best regards,
Alessandro

------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecom Italia
Alessandro Gerardo D'Alessandro
Transport Innovation
Via Reiss Romoli, 274 - 10148 Torino
phone:  [phone]
mobile: [phone]
fax: [phone]


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Per conto di Hejia
Inviato: sabato 29 settembre 2012 12:53
A: Loa Andersson
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; [e-mail]
Oggetto: Re: [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection

Do not support.

Based on the analysis in Section 2.4 of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-02, the ring protection scheme using SPME as described, either wrapping or steering, does have deficiencies, which IMHO should be better reconsidered and solved if possible.


B.R.
Jia

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Loa Andersson
发送时间: 2012年9月19日 18:49
抄送: [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: [mpls] Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection

Working Group,

this is to start a two week working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-02-txt.

Please note that there are two IPR disclosures # 1462 and  # 1872 related to this document.

Please send your comments to the mpls working group mailing lists ([e-mail]).

The working group last call ends October 3, 2012.

/Loa
for the mpls wg co-chairs


--


Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
                                              [phone] _______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls