Re: [Mter] Need to decide on potential next steps for MTER

"Diego Caviglia" <> Tue, 16 May 2006 07:23 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fftu5-0001bK-HN; Tue, 16 May 2006 03:23:37 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fftu3-0001bF-Gz for; Tue, 16 May 2006 03:23:35 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fftu3-0005Tg-00 for; Tue, 16 May 2006 03:23:35 -0400
Received: from ( []) by ( with ESMTP id k4G7NNPx004241; Tue, 16 May 2006 08:23:23 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from
Subject: Re: [Mter] Need to decide on potential next steps for MTER
To: JP Vasseur <>,
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003
Message-ID: <>
From: Diego Caviglia <>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:23:19 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY02/S/EXT/MC1(Release 5.0.13a |April 8, 2004) at 16/05/2006 08:23:22
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd
Cc: mter <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-TEchnology Recovery <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Some times ago I've published an ID about the requirements for interworking
between MS-SPRing and GMPLS, I think that this kind of interworking is
something that is MTER related and is also interesting from a carrier
prespective at least this is my feeling.



Michael Menth <> on 16/05/2006 09.12.08

Please respond to

To:    JP Vasseur <>
cc:    Rüdiger Martin <>,,

Subject:    Re: [Mter] Need to decide on potential next steps for MTER

Dear JP, Jean-Louis, and Raymond,

we are working on the field of multi-layer resilience, in particular
regarding the required backup capacity of protection and restoration
mechanisms, e.g. MPLS-FRR and others:

We, as a university, are interested in the mter discussion to share our
experience and to find new relevant issues for further research. I hope
that sufficiently many manufacturers and operators also express their
interest in this activity.

Kind regards,


JP Vasseur wrote:
> Hi,
> Below the email we sent to the list some time ago, seeking for
> feed-backs but so far the list has been pretty quiet. During the past
> few months we received a very few off-line positive feed-backs
> indicating some interest in this work. It is now a good time to decide
> on whether there is enough interest to work on this topic by the IETF
> community in which case we will request a BOF approval or whether the
> interest is too weak to pursue this work.
> So we will follow up with a few discussion threads related to the
> scenarios described in the problem statement ID, for which we'd like
> to get your feed-back relatively quickly, should you think that it is
> worth being pursed.
> Thanks.
> JP, Jean-Louis and Raymond.
> Hi,
> It took a little while to come up with a clear problem statement but
> we now have an I-D (
> mter-problem-statement-00.txt (thanks to the authors)) that will
> hopefully trigger some discussion with the objective to see whether
> there is enough interest to pursue this work at the IETF.
> The draft has been structured so as to first show three scenarios
> where various recovery mechanisms could be used in combination. This
> does not aim to cover all possible cases but some pretty common
> deployment scenario for the sake of illustration. Then various Multi-
> TEchnology Recovery (MTER) issues are discussed.
> What is the objective of this work ?
> Let's start with the set of non-objective first ...
> * There is no intention to come up with protocols extensions that are
> being worked out in existing WGs (ISIS, IDR, CCAMP, ....)
> * Discuss implementation-specific issues
> Now the objectives ...
> What has been shown through the three MTER deployment cases making use
> of multiple recovery mechanisms in combination is the following:
> -> There are cases where being able to identify the root failure cause
> would significantly improve various recovery metrics such as the
> convergence time, required backup capacity, ... and so on. Do we need
> to work on such mechanisms at the IETF is an open question ?
> -> MIBs and OAM tools have been defined for most of the recovery
> techniques (IGP, BGP, MPLS FRR, GMPLS, ... ) and there are clearly no
> such tool for the aspects related to their combined use. It looks like
> the availability of such tools would help Service Providers to manage,
> tune and troubleshooting their network. Again, feed-backs from this ML
> are critical to see how to move forward and if the community expressed
> some interest.
> Thanks for your feed-backs.
> JP, Jean-Louis and Raymond.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> MTER mailing list

Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632

MTER mailing list

MTER mailing list