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

"Fan Peng" <fanpeng@chinamobile.com> Mon, 19 March 2012 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F4221F8610 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.909
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.836, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RELAY_IS_221=2.222]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id me+78AzCuJsj for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7481821F8534 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DA6E575 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:59:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE0DE573 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:59:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from X6X8D79D8F49E2 ([10.2.52.245]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012031921594231-22461 ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:59:42 +0800
From: Fan Peng <fanpeng@chinamobile.com>
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:59:47 +0800
Message-ID: <006d01cd05d8$8b6ffee0$a24ffca0$@chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac0F1Qb1v/098DiaRxyLOyBgQ8yVtQ==
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-19 21:59:42, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-03-19 21:59:43, Serialize complete at 2012-03-19 21:59:43
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006E_01CD061B.9997F9D0"
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18782.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--29.151-7.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--29.151-7.0-31-10;No--29.151-7.0-31-10
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No
Cc: lilianyuan@chinamobile.com
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption duration
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:59:46 -0000

Hi all,

 

Any feedback about this memo?

 

I think I¡¯d better point out the purpose of this I-D straightforward. We
are not considering the outage time of IP/MPLS layer need to be more
strictly limited, but we want to reveal the fact that longer outage time is
tolerable. Although the industry may have some existing perspectives on the
matter of interruption duration ¨C for example sub-50ms-outage-time
requirement for physical transport layer ¨C we think the requirement for
IP/MPLS layer can be alleviated to some extent as long as upper-level
service connection is not affected to be broken. To be more specific, we
consider IP interruption duration of 3 sec is ok for softswitch voice.

 

There is no consensus right now in the industry on interruption duration for
IP/MPLS layer. We are hoping that we can discuss this problem  and finally
reach an agreement on requirement for IP/MPLS interruption duration. We hold
the opinion that sub-50ms requirement is not necessary for IP, and wish to
hear comments from all of you.

 

Best regards,

 

Fan Peng

 

 

·¢¼þÈË: fanpeng [mailto:fanpeng@chinamobile.com] 
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2012Äê3ÔÂ12ÈÕ 23:24
ÊÕ¼þÈË: 'opsawg@ietf.org'; 'Bradner, Scott'; '<ietf@cdl.asgaard.org>';
'<melinda.shore@gmail.com>'
³­ËÍ: ÀîÁ¬Ô´ (lilianyuan@chinamobile.com)
Ö÷Ìâ: Requirements for IP/MPLS network transmission interruption duration

 

Greetings all,

 

We have recently submitted a draft on transmission interruption duration
(draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption-00
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fan-opsawg-transmission-interuption/>
). We felt it necessary to make requirements for the interruption duration
since there is no consensus on it yet in the industry. We primarily analyzed
interruption criteria for softswitch voice, and research on LTE backhaul and
other kinds of service scenarios has been in progress.

 

We would like to hear from you feedbacks about this draft, e.g. whether or
not there should be such requirements or methodology for the analysis. Any
comment on it will be appreciated.

 

The following is a brief introduction:

 

Today's IP/MPLS network is widely used as a bearing network to carry
diversified packet switched services. The transmission qualities of these
services are closely related to the performance of bearing layers, as
network failure, delay, congestion and other abnormities will inevitably
bring about service interruption and user perception degradation. However,
there is no consensus in the industry on transmission interruption for
IP/MPLS network up to now.  This memo studies relationships between service
performance and transmission interruption duration in several scenarios, and
is intended to reach a list of requirements for these interruption duration
criteria.

 

 

Best regards,                                 

 

Fan Peng