Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Tue, 29 July 2014 14:53 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7AD71B2933; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 07:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CyMirroDghWe; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 07:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BA351B2822; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 07:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=59017; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1406645615; x=1407855215; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=gWxjGB09u62iIinWcfsfv/YWkoPC3EYdG/DfsTDTC74=; b=XbbRR243kGaqpk9ZHQJCohuYaTbCxkaDnP/GWYsU69vTms9xKbQfIdmS hw7T9Za9CGLa2iPNrPmRgJOsa2A+kygYXGipJdONEx7Sv7oOe1TQ5XhWo kI8AsMqkGslfGw2uucS5NmZIwKpIjDNkxlIYEhUWDxNPmrVeBC64fR6h9 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqAEAHq011OtJssW/2dsb2JhbABQCdRWgxyBJXeEJAECChEvBgwbEg80AjgUAQwBBwEBF4gnn1+PBpBVF45hEAMBJC4FhFEBBJcqhCKUToNKgW4BAR4EAg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,757,1400025600"; d="scan'208";a="126451892"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2014 14:53:31 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6TErVKA022467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:53:31 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id s6TErTA7003579; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:53:30 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <53D7B569.60400@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:53:29 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pwe3/6tak-p26wR-Qc5cMsi18Azl7SVc
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:53:45 -0000
I do not support the publication of this draft without: 1) An assurance that MPLS WG has reviewed it and is happy with the extensions that seem to be made to the MPLS architecture 2) A formal description of those extensions or a pointer to those extensions in another RFC. 3) Significant clarification of how the detail of this mechanism works. For this to work you need to have co-ordinated label spaces in multiple PEs which is something that was investigated by the SPRING WG and found not to work, particularly when different manufacturers equipments were involved. As far as I can see you also need to peek below the top of stack to do a fast reroute operation which is not a currently defined MPLS operation. There seem to be a lot of details and clarifications missing that need to be provided, and I am not entirely convinced that all of the items declared out of scope are legitimately out of scope and not needed in order for a multi-vendor solution to be implemented. It would be useful to me (and I suspect to other readers) to see what the dataplane looks like at various points in the normal and repair path to verify that all parties have the right information for this to work under normal and various fault conditions. I have a number of comments inline that need to be addressed before this can proceed. - Stewart PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01 Abstract This document specifies a fast mechanism for protecting pseudowires against egress endpoint failures, including egress attachment circuit failure, egress PE failure, multi-segment PW terminating PE failure, and multi-segment PW switching PE failure. Designed on the basis of multi-homed CE, PW redundancy, upstream label assignment and context specific label switching, the mechanism enables local repair to be performed by the router upstream adjacent to a failure. In particular, the router can restore PW traffic in the order of tens of milliseconds, SB> Not sure it's wise to specify a performance claim in a standards SB> track RFC. by transmitting the traffic to a protector through a pre-established bypass tunnel. Therefore, the mechanism can reduce traffic loss before global repair reacts to the failure and the network converges on the topology changes due to the failure. === 1. Introduction Per RFC 3985, RFC 4447 and RFC 5659, a pseudowire (PW) or PW segment can be thought of as a connection between a pair of forwarders hosted by two PEs, carrying an emulated layer-2 service over a packet switched network (PSN). In the single-segment PW (SS-PW) case, a forwarder binds a PW to an attachment circuit (AC). In the multi- segment PW (MS-PW) case, a forwarder on a terminating PE (T-PE) binds a PW segment to an AC, while a forwarder on a switching PE (S-PE) binds one PW segment to another PW segment. In each direction between the PEs, PW packets are transported by a PSN tunnel, which is called a transport tunnel. SB> Did we ever your the term transport tunnel before? 3. Reference Models and Failure Cases The mechanism in this document intends to use these topologies for local repair purposes. SB> The toplology is not a mechanism. Are you saying that the mechanims SB> only works in this topology? This SHALL enable local repair and global repair to work in tandem to achieve broader coverage of protection for services. SB> I have no idea how a SHALL in capitals applies here. 3.1. Single-Segment PW |<-------------- PW1 --------------->| - PE1 -------------- P1 ---------------- PE2 - / \ / \ CE1 CE2 \ / \ / - PE3 -------------- P2 ---------------- PE4 - |<-------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 1 Each CE is multi-homed to two PEs. Hence, there are two divergent paths between the CEs. SB> It does not follow that the paths are divergent! Who knows SB> what happens in the IP layer and the underlying transport SB> network. At any given time, each CE sends traffic via only one AC and receives traffic via only one AC. The two ACs MAY or MAY NOT be the same. SB> May not be the same what? If they are actually the same AC you SB> have no redundancy. The AC used to send traffic is determined by the CE, and MAY rely on an end-to-end OAM mechanism between the CEs. The AC used for the CE to receive traffic is determined by the state of the network and the protection mechanism in use, as described later in this document. From the perspective of traffic flowing towards a given CE, the set of PWs, PEs and ACs involved can be viewed to serve primary and backup (or active and standby) roles. When the network is in a steady state, the PW that is intended to carry the traffic is referred to as a primary PW. The PE at the egress of the primary PW is a primary PE. The AC connecting the CE and the primary PE is a primary AC. The other PW may be used to carry the traffic upon a network failure, and is referred to as a backup PW. The PE at the egress of the backup PW is a backup PE. The AC connecting the CE and the backup PE is a backup AC. In this document, the following primary and backup roles are assigned for the traffic going from CE1 to CE2: Primary PW: PW1 Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 Primary PE: PE2 Primary AC: CE2-PE2 Backup PW: PW2 Backup PE: PE4 Backup AC: CE2-PE4 In this case, an egress AC failure refers to the failure of the AC CE2-PE2. An egress node failure refers to the failure of PE2. The backup PE, backup PW and backup AC may be used to carry traffic after a PW endpoint failure, when CE1 and CE2 switches traffic to PW2 in local repair or global repair, as described later in this document. |<-------------- PW1 --------------->| ------------- P1 ---------------- PE2 - / \ / \ CE1 -- PE1 CE2 \ / \ / ------------- P2 ---------------- PE4 - |<-------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 2 Figure 2 shows another possible scenario, where CE1 is single-homed to PE1, while CE2 remains multi-homed to PE2 and PE4. From the perspective of egress protection for the traffic from CE1 to CE2, this topology is not much different than Figure 1. However, for the SB> "not much different than Figure 1" is not helpful, either it is the same, or you need to explain the difference. traffic in the direction from CE2 to CE1, PE1 must anticipate traffic on both PW1 and PW2, and sends it to CE1 over the AC CE1-PE1. SB> What does it mean to anticipate traffic. 3.2. Multi-Segment PW Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 |<--------------- PW1 --------------->| |<----- SEG1 ----->|<----- SEG2 ----->| - TPE1 -------------- SPE1 --------------- TPE2 - / \ / \ CE1 CE2 \ / \ / - TPE3 -------------- SPE2 --------------- TPE4 - |<----- SEG3 ----->|<----- SEG4 ----->| |<--------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 3 Figure 3 shows a topology that is similar to Figure 1 but in an MS-PW environment. PW1 and PW2 are both MS-PWs. PW1 is established between TPE1 and TPE2, and switched between segments SEG1 and SEG2 at SPE1. PW2 is established between TPE3 and TPE4, and switched between segments SEG3 and SEG4 at SPE2. CE1 is multi-homed to TPE1 and TPE3. CE2 is multi-homed to TPE2 and TPE4. The transport tunnels of the PW segments are not shown in this figure for clarity. In this document, the following primary and backup roles are assigned for the traffic going from CE1 to CE2: Primary PW: PW1 Primary T-PE: TPE2 Primary S-PE: SPE1 Primary AC: CE2-TPE2 Backup PW: PW2 Backup T-PE: TPE4 Backup S-PE: SPE2 Backup AC: CE2-TPE4 In this case, an egress AC failure refers to the failure of the AC CE2-TPE2. An egress node failure refers to the failure of TPE2. An S-PE failure refers to the failure of SPE1. Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 The backup T-PE, backup PW and backup AC are used for protecting the primary PW against egress AC failure and egress node failure. The backup S-PE and the backup PW are used for protecting the primary PW against S-PE failure, as described later in this document. For consistency with the SS-PW scenario, primary T-PEs and a primary S-PEs may simply be referred to as primary PEs in this document, where specifics is not required. Similarly, backup T-PEs and backup S-PEs may be referred to as backup PEs. 4. Theory of Operation The fast protection mechanism in this document provides three types of protection for PWs, corresponding to the three types of failures described in Section 1. a. Egress AC protection b. Egress (T-)PE node protection c. S-PE node protection The mechanism assumes a multi-homed CE with connectivity to a primary PE and a backup PE, and the existence of a backup PW in the network. In S-PE node protection, it also assumes the existence of a backup S-PE on the backup PW. SB> Do the PWs need to be symmetric - could you have more S-PEs on one that you have on the other? 4.1. Local Repair and Protector The mechanism relies on local repair to be performed by routers SB> Do you mean routers or PEs? Routers of more likely LSRs operate at a different layer and have no business knowing about PWs. SB> Has this work been reviewed my MPLS WG? I am concerned that you are doing a bunch of layer violation without explaining the how this is achieved or whether it is acceptable within the MPLS architecture. upstream adjacent to failures. Each of these routers is referred to as a "point of local repair" (PLR). A PLR MUST be able to detect a failure by using a rapid mechanism, such as physical layer failure detection, Bidirectional Failure Detection (BFD) (RFC 5880), etc. In anticipation of the failure, the PLR MUST also pre-establish a bypass PSN tunnel to a "protector", and pre-install a bypass route in the data plane. The bypass tunnel MUST have the property that it will not be affected by the topology changes in the event of the failure. SB> This is far too imprecise - you need to separate operations and topologies in the PW layer from operations and topologies in the PSN layer SB> In each case you need to be clear how you are detecting failure by specifying the MEPs and MIPs you are testing. Upon detecting the failure, the PLR MUST invoke the bypass route in the data plane, and reroute PW traffic to the protector through the bypass tunnel. The protector MUST in turn send the traffic to the target CE. SB> No the protector knows nothing about CEs - they are in the client layer, and you can only protect at the server layer or the server's server layer. This procedure is referred to as local repair. Different routers may serve as PLR and protector in different scenarios. SB> Remember they are not routers - they are xPEs or LSRs. SB> In each of the following we need to note that these are not RFC3985 PEs, even if they take no part in the protection such as the PEs on the left. Indeed I am wondering if you need to update RFC3985 and RFC5659 Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 o In egress AC protection, the PLR is the primary PE that terminates the primary PW and hosts the primary AC, and the protector is the backup PE (Figure 4). |<-------------- PW1 --------------->| - PE1 -------------- P1 ---------------- PE2 - / PLR \ / | \ CE1 bypass| CE2 \ | / \ | / - PE3 -------------- P2 ---------------- PE4 - protector |<-------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 4 o In egress PE node protection, the PLR is the penultimate hop router of the transport tunnel of the primary PW, and the protector is the backup PE (Figure 5). |<-------------- PW1 --------------->| - PE1 -------------- P1 ------- P3 ----- PE2 - / PLR \ \ / \ \ CE1 bypass\ CE2 \ \ / \ \ / - PE3 -------------- P2 ---------------- PE4 - protector |<-------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 5 SB> Note that it is nothing like as clean as this, if as you later have, some of P3's traffic needs to go to PE4 and some to PE5. Also what about the o In S-PE node protection, the PLR is the penultimate hop router of the transport tunnel of the primary PW segment, and the protector is the backup S-PE (Figure 6). Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 |<--------------- PW1 --------------->| |<----- SEG1 ----->|<----- SEG2 ----->| - TPE1 ----- P4 ----- SPE1 -------------- TPE2 - / PLR \ \ / \ \ CE1 bypass\ CE2 \ \ / \ \ / - TPE3 --------------- SPE2 -------------- TPE4 - protector |<----- SEG3 ----->|<----- SEG4 ----->| |<--------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 6 A PLR can realize its role based on configuration or the signaling of transport tunnel. For example, in the case where the transport tunnel is signaled by RSVP, the penultimate hop router could realize SB> Could realize is not sufficient. The mechanism needs to be unconditional. that it is the PLR for egress (T-)PE or S-PE failure based on the RRO in Resv message, which should indicate that the router is one hop away from the PE. The detail of how this could be achieved on a per- protocol basis is out of the scope of this document. SB> So where is it in scope? How do I find out how to do it? In all scenarios, when a PLR reroutes traffic through a bypass tunnel to a protector during local repair, it MUST keep the label of the primary PW intact in the packets. This obviates the need for the PLR to maintain bypass routes on a per-PW basis, and allows a single bypass tunnel to carry traffic for multiple PWs. SB> OK, but didn't I read something about PE protecting subsets of the egress traffic of other PEs? How would that work without per PW information? The procedure also requires that the protector SHOULD be able to forward the traffic based on a PW label that is assigned by the primary PE, and ensure the traffic to eventually reach the target CE. From the protector's perspective, this PW label is an upstream assigned label (RFC 5331). SB> .. but the protector may be a P router and know nothing about PWs. To accomplish this, the protector SHOULD learning the PW label from the primary PE prior to the failure, and install proper forwarding state for the PW label in a dedicated label space for the primary PE. SB> This is a new PE to P router protocol During local repair, the protector SHOULD perform PW label lookup in this label space. SB> This has to be signed off by MPLS WG SB> How can this only be a SHOULD - why is it not a MUST? SB> What do you do to ensure that they even have compatible label managers? SB> Doesn't this mean a P router looking up two labels to do the repair? The above examples have shown the scenarios where the protectors are backup (T/S-)PEs. In other scenarios, a protector may be a dedicated router that assumes such role, separate from the backup (T/S-)PE of a primary PW. During local repair, the PLR MUST still reroute traffic to the protector through a bypass tunnel. The protector MUST in turn send the traffic to the backup (T/S-)PE, which MUST then send the Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 traffic to the target CE via a backup AC or a backup PW segment. More detail will be described in Section 4.3. 4.2. Context Identifier A protector MAY protect multiple primary PEs. SB> This requires that a P router knows about PWs - how does it do that? The protector MUST maintain a separate label space for each primary PE. Likewise, the PWs terminated on a primary PE MAY be protected by multiple protectors, each for a subset of the PWs. In any case, a given primary PW SHOULD be associated with one and only one pair of {primary PE, protector}. An IPv4/v6 address is assigned to each ordered pair of {primary PE, protector} to facilitate protection establishment. This address is referred to as a "context identifier". It MUST be globally unique, or unique in the address space of the network where the primary PE and the protector reside. SB> I think you need to make clear that this is not backwards compatible with existing PW PEs. SB> You also need to explain how the IP based context identifier mechanism works. Is it in the control plane or the data plane? 4.2.1. Semantics The semantics of a context identifier is twofold. o It identifies a primary PE and an associated protector. In other words, it identifies a primary PE on a per protector basis. A given primary PE may be protected by multiple protectors, each for a subset of the primary PWs terminated on the primary PE. A distinct context identifier MUST be assigned to the primary PE and each protector. For each primary PW, its ingress PE MUST set up or resolve a transport tunnel with destination as the context identifier of the {primary PE, protector}, rather than a private IP address of the primary PE. This not only allows the transport tunnel to reach the primary PE, but also conveys the identity of the protector to the PLR(s) along the transport tunnel. Each PLR can in turn use this information to set up a bypass tunnel to the protector without relying on local configuration. o It indentifies the primary PE's label space on the protector. The protector may protect PWs for multiple primary PEs. For each primary PE, it MUST maintain a separate label space to store the PW labels assigned by that primary PE. It MUST associate a PW label with a label space via the context identifier of the {primary PE, protector}, as described below. SB> Is this context identifier an IP address or an MPLS label? Where is it carried? In addition to the normal LDP PW signaling, the primary PE MUST have a targeted LDP session with the protector, and advertise PW labels to the protector via LDP Label Mapping messages (See Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 Section 5 for detail). The primary PE MUST attach the context identifier to each message. Upon receiving the message, the protector MUST install the advertised PW label in the label space identified by the context identifier. SB> I am currently confused about how a data packet carries the PW label provided by another PE. When a PLR sets up or resolve a bypass tunnel to the protector, it MUST set the destination to the context identifier, rather than a private IP address of the protector. Once established, the bypass tunnel, with either its MPLS label or IP tunnel destination address, is used as the identifier of label space. On the protector, all PW packets received on the bypass tunnel MUST be forwarded based on a label lookup in that label space. SB> I do not understand the data plane structure that the above sentence is describing. 4.2.2. Advertisement and Path Computation Using a context identifier as destination for both transport tunnel and bypass tunnel requires both the primary PE and the protector to advertise the context identifier via IGP as an IP address reachable through both routers in routing domain and/or TE domain. This imposes the following requirements on path computation for these tunnels. o For the transport tunnel, the ingress PE MUST choose the primary PE as the actual endpoint. o For the bypass tunnel, the PLR MUST choose the protector as the actual endpoint. In egress (T-)PE node protection and S-PE node protection, the bypass tunnel MUST avoid the primary (S-)PE. The detail of how the primary PE and the protector may advertise a context identifier is independent of this mechanism and out of the scope of this document. SB> Given that you give signalling data structures later, I am confused as to how this can be out of scope of this text. Surely this is needed to implement an interoperable solution? One approach would be to advertise it as a virtual proxy node connected to both routers, with the link between the proxy node and the primary PE having a more preferable IGP or TE metric than the link between the proxy node and the protector. The ultimate goal is for a path computation algorithm, such as CSPF (constrained shortest path first), LFA (RFC 5286) and MRT ([IP-LDP- FRR-MRT]), to be able to compute the paths that meet the above requirements. 4.3. Protection Models There are two protection models based on the location of a protector. A network MAY use either model, or a combination of both. Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 4.3.1. Co-located Protector In this model, the protector is a backup PE that is directly connected to the target CE via a backup AC, or it is a backup S-PE on a backup PW. That is, the protector is co-located with the backup (S-)PE. Examples of this model have been introduced in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 in Section 4.1. In egress AC protection and egress PE node protection, when a protector receives traffic from the PLR, it forwards the traffic to the CE via the backup AC. This is shown in Figure 7, where PE2 is the PLR for egress AC failure, P3 is the PLR for PE2 failure, and PE4 (the backup PE) is the protector. |<-------------- PW1 --------------->| - PE1 -------------- P1 ------- P3 ----- PE2 ---- / PLR \ PLR \ / \ | \ CE1 bypass\ |bypass CE2 \ \ | / \ \ | / - PE3 -------------- P2 ---------------- PE4 ---- protector |<-------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 7 In S-PE node protection, when a protector receives traffic from the PLR, it MUST forward the traffic via the next segment of the backup PW. The T-PE of the backup PW MUST in turn forward the traffic to the CE via a backup AC. This is shown in Figure 8, where P4 is the PLR for SPE1 failure, and SPE2 (the backup S-PE) is the protector for SPE1. Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 13] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 |<--------------- PW1 --------------->| |<----- SEG1 ----->|<----- SEG2 ----->| - TPE1 ----- P4 ----- SPE1 -------------- TPE2 - / PLR \ \ / \ \ CE1 bypass\ CE2 \ \ / \ \ / - TPE3 --------------- SPE2 -------------- TPE4 - protector |<----- SEG3 ----->|<----- SEG4 ----->| |<--------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 8 In the co-located protector model, the number of context identifiers needed by a network is the number of distinct {primary PE, backup PE} pairs. From the perspective of scalability, the model is suitable for networks where the number of backup PEs for any given primary PE is relatively small. 4.3.2. Centralized Protector In this model, the protector is a dedicated P router or PE router that serves the role. In egress AC protection and egress PE node protection, the protector MAY or MAY NOT be a backup PE with a direct connection to the target CE. In S-PE node protection, the protector MAY or MAY NOT be a backup S-PE on the backup PW. In egress AC protection and egress PE node protection, when the protector receives traffic from the PLR, if the protector has a direct connection (i.e. backup AC) to the CE, it MUST forward the traffic to the CE via the backup AC, which is similar to Figure 7. Otherwise, it MUST forward the traffic to a backup PE, which MUST then forward the traffic to the CE via a backup AC. This is shown in Figure 9, where the protector receives traffic from P3 (the PLR for egress PE failure) or PE2 (the PLR for egress AC failure) and forwards the traffic to PE4 (the backup PE). The protector may be protecting other PWs as well, which is not shown in this figure for clarity. SB> If you are going to cover the shared case, I think you need to make it much clearer how the PWs are identified from the received data packets. Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 14] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 |<------------- PW1 --------------->| - PE1 ------------- P1 ------- P3 ----- PE2 -- / PLR \ PLR \ / \ / \ / bypass\ /bypass \ / \ / \ CE1 protector CE2 \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / - PE3 ------------- P2 -----------------PE4 -- |<------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 9 In S-PE node protection, when the protector receives traffic from the PLR, if the protector is a backup S-PE of the backup PW, it MUST forward the traffic via the next segment of the backup PW, and the T-PE of the backup PW MUST forward the traffic to the CE via a backup AC, which is similar to Figure 8. Otherwise, the protector MUST first forward the traffic to the backup S-PE, which MUST then forward the traffic via the next segment of the backup PW. Finally, the T-PE of the backup PW MUST forward the traffic to the CE via a backup AC. This is shown in Figure 10, where the protector forwards traffic to SPE2 (the backup S-PE), SPE2 forwards the traffic to TPE4 via SEG4, and TPE4 finally forwards traffic to CE2. The protector may be protecting other PW segments as well, which is not shown in this figure for clarity. Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 15] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 |<--------------- PW1 --------------->| |<----- SEG1 ----->|<----- SEG2 ----->| - TPE1 ----- P4 ----- SPE1 -------------- TPE2 - / PLR \ \ / \ \ / bypass\ \ / \ \ CE1 protector CE2 \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / - TPE3 --------------- SPE2 -------------- TPE4 - |<----- SEG3 ----->|<----- SEG4 ----->| |<--------------- PW2 --------------->| Figure 10 The centralized protector model provides the convenience for multiple primary PEs to share one protector. Each primary PE MAY only need the one protector to protect all of its PWs. From the perspective of scalability, the number of context identifiers needed by a network MAY be bound to the number of primary PEs. 4.4. Transport Tunnel The ingress PE of a primary PW associates the PW with the primary egress PE through LDP signaling. In addition, as mentioned in Section 4.2.1, the ingress PE MUST associate the transport tunnel of the PW with the context identifier of the {primary PE, protector}, and set up or resolve the transport tunnel by using the context identifier as destination. This not only ensures that PW traffic be transported to the primary PE, but also facilitates bypass tunnel establishment at PLR(s), as the context identifier implies the identity of the protector as well. This is also the case for a multi-segment PW, where the ingress PE and egress PE are T/S-PEs. The association between the transport tunnel and the context identifier at the ingress PE MAY be achieved by configuration or an auto-discovery mechanism. In the later case, the ingress PE MAY learn the context identifier from the primary (egress) PE, if the primary PE advertises the context identifier as "third party next hop" in IPv4/v6 Interface_ID (RFC 3471, RFC 3472) in the LDP Label Mapping message of the primary PW. Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 16] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 4.5. Bypass Tunnel A PLR may protect multiple PWs associated with one or multiple pairs of {primary PE, protector}. The PLR MUST establish a bypass tunnel to each protector for each distinct context identifier associated with that protector. The destination of the bypass tunnel MUST be the context identifier (Section 4.2.1). The PLR may derive the context identifier from the destination of the transport tunnel that traverses it. For examples, in Figure 7 and Figure 9, a bypass tunnel is established from PE2 (PLR for egress AC failure) to the protector, and another bypass tunnel is established from P3 (PLR for egress node failure) to the protector. In Figure 8 and Figure 10, a bypass tunnel is established from P4 (PLR for S-PE failure) to the protector. During local repair, the PLR reroutes traffic to the protector through a bypass tunnel with PW label intact in the packets. This normally involves pushing a label to the label stack, if the bypass tunnel is an MPLS tunnel, or pushing an IP header to the packets, if the bypass tunnel is an IP tunnel. SB> Surely it is normally a swap? SB> I am somewhat confused about what this all looks like when this is IP. The only PS/IP other than for SATOP are defined by L2TPv3 WG. There is no IP MS-PW definition that I am aware of. I think you need to be much clearer about what is going on when you discuss PW over IP egress repair. The protector MUST in turn forward the traffic based on the PW label. To achieve such kind of forwarding, the protector MUST rely on the bypass tunnel as a context to determine the primary PE's label space. If the bypass tunnel is an MPLS tunnel, the protector MUST have assigned a non-reserved label to the bypass tunnel during the establishment of the bypass tunnel, and hence this label can serve as the context. If the bypass tunnel is an IP tunnel, the protector can simply rely on the context identifier carried as the destination address in IP header. A bypass tunnel MUST have the property that it is not affected by the topology changes caused by the failure. Therefore, it can be used to transmit traffic for local repair. It SHOULD remain effective, until the traffic is moved to another fully functional egress AC, PW and/or transport tunnel. 4.6. Forwarding State on Protector A protector MUST learn PW labels from all the primary PEs that it protects (Section 5.2), and maintain the PW labels in respective label spaces of the primary PEs. In the control plane, a label space is identified by the context identifier of a pair of {primary PE, protector}. In the forwarding plane, it is indicated by the bypass tunnel(s) destined for the context identifier. SB> Are you saying that this mechanism mandates no PHP? Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 17] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 4.6.1. Examples of Co-located Protector In Figure 7, PE4 is a co-located protector that protects PW1 against egress AC failure and egress node failure. It maintains a label space for PE2, which is identified by the context identifier of {PE2, PE4}. It learns PW1's label from PE2, and installs an forwarding entry for the label in that label space. The nexthop of the forwarding entry indicates a label pop with outgoing interface pointing to the backup AC CE2-PE4. SB> I am not sure what you are describing in the above. Is this an MPLS operation or a PW operation. If the latter it is not a simple label pop. In Figure 8, SPE2 is a co-located protector that protects PW1 against S-PE failure. It maintains a label space for SPE1, which is identified by the context identifier of {SPE1, SPE2}. It learns SEG1's label from SPE1, and installs a forwarding entry in the label space. The nexthop of the forwarding entry indicates a label swap to SEG4's label. 4.6.2. Examples of Centralized Protector In the centralized protector model, for each primary PW of which the protector is not a backup (S-)PE, the protector MUST also learn the label of the backup PW from the backup (S-)PE (Section 5.3). This is the backup (S-)PE that the protector will forward traffic to. The protector MUST install a forwarding entry with label swap from the primary PW's label to the backup PW's label. In Figure 9, the protector is a centralized protector that protects PW1 against egress AC failure and egress node failure. It maintains a label space for PE2, which is identified by the context identifier of {PE2, protector}. It learns PW1's label from PE2, and PW2's label from PE4. It installs a forwarding entry for PW1's label in the label space. The nexthop of the forwarding entry indicates a label swap to PW2's label. In Figure 10, the protector is a centralized protector that protects the PW segment SEG1 of PW1 against the node failure of SPE1. It maintains a label space for SPE1, which is identified by the context identifier of {SPE1, protector}. It learns SEG1's label from SPE1, and learns SEG3's label from SPE2. It installs a forwarding entry for SEG1's label in the label space. The nexthop of the forwarding entry indicates a label swap to SEG3's label. 5. LDP Extensions As described in previous sections, a targeted LDP session MUST be established between each pair of primary PE and protector. The primary PE sends Label Mapping message over this session to advertise primary PW labels to the protector. In the centralized protector Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 18] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 model, a targeted LDP session MUST also be established between a backup (S-)PE and a protector. The backup PE sends Label Mapping message over this session to advertise backup PW labels to the protector. To facilitate the procedures, this document defines a new "Protection FEC Element" TLV. The Label Mapping messages of both the LDP sessions above MUST carry this TLV to indicate the identity of a primary PW. Specifically, in the centralized protector model, the Protection FEC Element TLV advertised by a backup (S-)PE MUST match the one advertised by the primary PE, so that the protector can associate the primary PW's label with the backup PW's label, and perform a label swap. This document also defines the encoding of Capability Parameter TLV (RFC 5561) for a new "Egress Protection Capability", to allow a protector to announce its capability of processing the above Protection FEC Element TLV and performing context specific label switching for PW labels. The procedures in this section are only applicable, if the protector advertises the Egress Protection Capability, the primary PE supports the advertisement of the Protection FEC Element TLV, and in the centralized protector model, the backup PE also supports the advertisement of the Protection FEC Element TLV. 5.1. Egress Protection Capability TLV A protector MUST advertise the Egress Protection Capability TLV in its Initialization message and Capability message, over the LDP session with a primary PE. In the centralized protector model, the protector MUST also advertise the TLV over the LDP session with a backup PE. The TLV carries one or multiple context identifiers. To the primary PE, the TLV SHOULD carry the context identifier of the {primary PE, protector}. In the centralized protector model, the TLV SHOULD carry to the backup PE multiple context identifiers, one for each {primary PE, protector} where the backup PE serves as a backup for the primary PE. This TLV SHOULD NOT be advertised by the primary PE or the backup PE to the protector. The processing of the Egress Protection Capability TLV by a receiving router SHOULD follow the procedures defined in RFC 5561. In particular, the router SHOULD advertise PW information to the protector by using the Protection FEC Element TLV, only after it has received the Egress Protection Capability TLV from the protector. It SHOULD validate each context identifier included in the TLV, and advertise the information of only those PWs that are associated with the context identifier. It SHOULD withdraw previously advertised Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 19] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 Protection FEC TLVs, when the protector has withdrawn a previously advertised context identifier or the entire Egress Protection Capability TLV via Capability message. The encoding of the Egress Protection Capability TLV is defined as below. It conforms to the format of Capability Parameter TLV specified in RFC 5561. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Egress Protection (TBD) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |S| Reserved | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | ~ Capability Data = context identifier(s) ~ | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 11 The U-bit MUST be set to 1 so that a receiver MUST silently ignore this TLV if unknown to it, and continue processing the rest of the message. The F-bit MUST be set to 0 since this TLV is sent only in Initialization and Capability messages, which are not forwarded. The TLV Code Point is TBD. It needs to be assigned by IANA. The S-bit indicates whether the sender is advertising (S=1) or withdrawing (S=0) the capability. The "Capability Data" is encoded with the context identifier of the {primary PE, protector}. SB> where is the structure of {primary PE, protector} defined? 5.2. PW Label Distribution from Primary PE to Protector A primary PE SHOULD advertise a primary PW's label to a protector by sending a Label Mapping message. The message includes a Protection FEC Element TLV (see Section 5.4 for encoding), and an Upstream- Assigned Label TLV (RFC 6389) encoded with the PW's label. The combination of the Protection FEC Element TLV and the PW label represents the primary PE's forwarding state for the PW. The Label Mapping message SHOULD also carry an IPv4/v6 Interface_ID TLV (RFC Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 20] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 6389, RFC 3471) encoded with the context identifier of the {primary PE, protector}. The protector that receives this Label Mapping message SHOULD install a forwarding entry for the PW label in the label space identified by the context identifier. The nexthop of the forwarding entry SHOULD ensure packets to be sent towards the target CE via a backup AC or a backup (S-)PE, depending on the protection scenario. The protector SHOULD silently discard a Label Mapping message if the included context identifier is unknown to it. 5.3. PW Label Distribution from Backup PE to Protector In the centralized protector model, a backup PE SHOULD advertise a backup PW's label to a protector by sending a Label Mapping message. The message includes a Protection FEC Element TLV and a Generic Label TLV encoded with the backup PW's label. This Protection FEC Element MUST be identical to the Protection FEC Element TLV that the primary PE advertises to the protector (Section 5.2). The context identifier SHOULD NOT be encoded in Interface_ID TLV in this message. The protector that receives this Label Mapping message SHOULD associate the backup PW with the primary PW, based on the common Protection FEC Element TLV. It SHOULD distinguish between the Label Mapping message from the primary PE and the Label Mapping message from the backup PE based on the respective presence and absence of context identifier in Interface_ID TLV. It SHOULD install a forwarding entry for the primary PW's label in the label space identified by the context identifier. The nexthop of the forwarding entry SHOULD indicate a label swap to the backup PW's label, followed by a label push or IP header push for a transport tunnel to the backup PE. 5.4. Protection FEC Element TLV The Protection FEC Element TLV has type 0x83. Its format is defined as below: Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 21] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type(0x83) | Reserved | Encoding Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | ~ PW Information ~ | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 12 - Encoding Type Type of format that PW Information field is encoded. - Length Length of PW Information field in octets. - PW Information Field of variable length that specifies a PW For Encoding Type, 1 is defined for the PWid FEC Element format, and 2 is defined for the Generalized PWid FEC Element format (RFC 4447). 5.4.1. Encoding Format for PWid Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 22] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type(0x83) | Reserved | Enc Type(1) | Length(16) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Ingress PE Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Egress PE Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PW ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |C| PW Type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 13 - Ingress PE Address IP address of the ingress PE of PW. - Egress PE Address IP address of the egress PE of PW. SB> How does this work for IPv6? - Group ID An arbitrary 32-bit value that represents a group of PWs and that is used to create groups in the PW space. - PW ID A non-zero 32-bit connection ID that, together with the PW Type field, identifies a particular PW. - Control word bit (C) A bit that flags the presence of a control word on this PW. If C = 1, control word is present; If C = 0, control word is not present. - PW Type A 15-bit quantity that represents the type of PW. SB> Needs a ref Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 23] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 5.4.2. Encoding Format for Generalized PWid 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type(0x83) | Reserved | Enc Type(2) | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Ingress PE Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Egress PE Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |C| PW Type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AGI Type | Length | Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ AGI Value (contd.) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AII Type | Length | Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ SAII Value (contd.) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AII Type | Length | Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ TAII Value (contd.) ~ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 14 - Ingress PE Address IP address of the ingress PE of PW. - Egress PE Address IP address of the egress PE of PW. SB> IPv6? - Control word bit (C) A bit that flags the presence of a control word on this PW. If C = 1, control word is present; If C = 0, control word is not present. - PW Type A 15-bit quantity that represents the type of PW. Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 24] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 - AGI Type, Length, Value, AGI Value Attachment Group Identifier of PW. - SAII Type, Length, Value, SAII Value Source Attachment Individual Identifier of PW. - TAII Type, Length, Value, TAII Value Target Attachment Individual Identifier of PW. 6. Revertive Behavior Subsequent to local repair, there are three strategies for the network to restore traffic to a fully functional PW. o Global revertive mode If the ingress CE is multi-homed (Figure 1), it MAY switch the traffic to a backup AC which is bound to a backup PW. Alternatively, if the ingress PE hosts a backup PW (Figure 2), the ingress PE MAY switch the traffic to the backup PW. These procedures are referred to as global repair. Possible triggers of a global repair include PW status, OAM, and BFD. o Control plane revertive mode In egress PE node protection and S-PE node protection, it is possible that the failure is limited to the link between the PLR and the primary (S-)PE, whereas the primary (S-)PE is still up. In this case, the PLR or an upstream router along the transport tunnel MAY reroute the tunnel around the failed link via an alternative path. Thus, the transport tunnel can continue to be used to carry the PW traffic to the primary (S-)PE. This procedure is driven by control plane convergence, and is referred to as control plane repair. o Local revertive mode The PLR MAY move traffic back to the primary PW, after the failure is resolved. In egress AC protection, upon detecting that the primary AC is restored, the PLR MAY start forwarding traffic over the AC again. Likewise, in egress PE node protection and S-PE node protection, upon detecting that the primary PE is restored, the PLR MAY re-establish the primary transport tunnel through the primary PE, and move the traffic from the bypass tunnel back to Yimin Shen, et al. Expires January 25, 2015 [Page 25] Internet-Draft PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection July 2014 the transport tunnel. These procedures are referred to as local reversion. The fast protection mechanism in this document SHOULD be used in tandem with the global revertive mode. Particularly in the case of egress (S-)PE failure, if the ingress PE or the protector loses communication with the (S-)PE for an extensive period of time, the LDP session between them may go down. Consequently, the ingress PE may bring down the primary PW, or the protector may remove the forwarding entry of the primary PW label. In either case, the service will be disrupted. In other words, although the fast protection can temporarily repair traffic, control plane state may eventually be timed out if the failure persists. Therefore, it is recommended that the global revertive mode SHOULD be set up in advance, so that traffic can be moved to a fully functional backup PW shortly after the local repair. The control plane revertive mode may always happen as part of the convergence of control plane protocols. However, it is only applicable to the specific scenarios described above. The local revertive mode is optional. In the circumstances where the failure is caused by resource flapping, local reversion MAY be dampened to limit potential disruptions. Local revertive mode MAY be disabled completely by configuration. 7. IANA Considerations This document defines the encoding of the Capability Parameter TLV for the new "Egress Protection Capability" in Section 5. This would require IANA to assign a TLV Code Point to it. This document defines a new LDP Protection FEC Element TLV in Section 5. IANA has assigned the type value 0x83 to it. SB> I am very confused about what explicit actions you are asking IANA to take. Are you saying that there are no IANA actions? 8. Security Considerations The security considerations discussed in RFC 5036, RFC 5331, RFC 3209, and RFC 4090 apply to this document. SB> Are there any PW security considerations that apply? SB> This is a new PW operational mode, so I am surprised that there are no new security considerations. An early security review might be useful.
- [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-… Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
- [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-… Yakov Rekhter
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… John E Drake
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Mach Chen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yakov Rekhter
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Loa Andersson
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Eric Rosen
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Mingui Zhang
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Mingui Zhang
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Loa Andersson
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Yakov Rekhter
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Loa Andersson
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Yakov Rekhter
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Loa Andersson
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpo… Yimin Shen