Re: [OPSAWG] 答复: Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption duration

On Mar 20, 2012 6:48 AM, "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of
> > Fan Peng
> >
> > I think Adrian's question can be interpreted as "whether the IP layer
is aware
> > of what kinds of serves it is carrying and how it defines requirement
for
> > multiple services?"
>
> [WEG] I'd put it in slightly different terms.
> Today, many people build IP networks to carry things that used to live
directly on SONET/SDH. Those applications are sometimes designed with
SONET/SDH's performance envelope in mind (sub-millisecond fault detection,
50ms restoration), and so applications expect an equivalent performance
envelope from an IP network, which is costly, and starts to drive more and
more complex IP networks (including things like MPLS TE).
>
> Instead, we need to produce guidance for the application community about
the typical/average and best-possible-case performance envelope for a
properly designed IP network, both a network using standard IP with few
optimizations, and one that employs things to improve detection,
convergence, and restoration times, such as IP or MPLS FRR, or TE. The idea
is that they need to design to what the network is capable of delivering,
rather than the other way around. Then we can discuss the user-experience
requirements for different types of applications, including voice, video,
real-time web apps, etc, as well as the needs of extreme cases like the
securities industry, which value low latency over all else.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wes George
>

+1 for Wes's approach.

We have been chasing 50ms for years, and it is not the right goal.
I believe the goal should be driven by what is reasonably achievable in a
well run IP network, and applications can take that feedback as a design
goal  for applications that run on a reasonable and well run network.
Additional guidance about exponential back off of signalling would be
nice.... ah and a note about how the term IP network = ipv6.

I got a whole list of guidance for LTE back haul  :)

But this is scope creep

Cb

> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
this E-mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg