Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP Linear Protection Applicability to MS-PW"

binny jeshan <binnyjeshan@gmail.com> Mon, 13 June 2011 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <binnyjeshan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6FC1F0C44; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_29=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K8fOiHVBfQal; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968611F0C3D; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so643142yxt.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Q36mHbhPccEYf6AdrexTUhzXrwvL+RA2MMsSvVl7/aw=; b=jQFVIfGRRV7jsHf3e1NjuZ8Qjd4t+uYJfGAVx0udhKUqRvZCZYlUlAZwSZ7AIvvxX5 r3Wd4kD3g2TWD44oJK1x0C5noFq2snNbbdqDLHhbj4RKfieTOP8uKs9syIIM136Fm4+B +uYkbdi5G0bkb2zuT9Md0M+N+KswI+jyJdGEY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=jWlWvcdZhsmH6rRRsjnbunYsmHIWGjI3kA5hoXz3ft6gsrR0NCe4T9oyzAl2NSSnKt zR6yMWNaK/8o8IoiIfKAbqDbCkk6BgP8l2/m9W6BI1cMYzvkYxZCWM+cSwSDRLdZBt5u Lvmsn+0FFDsjMxxjN0LuiF99OMChYtWX7VyGw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.138.14 with SMTP id q14mr5060715ann.49.1307969888534; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.226.6 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76E9BDCA9A38@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
References: <OF7EF3F6D6.7AE4C202-ON482578AE.00430DDE-482578AE.0044404E@zte.com.cn> <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76E9BDCA9A38@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:28:08 +0530
Message-ID: <BANLkTikBoL+BkShLNJ0zcC1av6z2OTmRyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: binny jeshan <binnyjeshan@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6d27c62953fac04a5977843"
Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "ma.yuxia@zte.com.cn" <ma.yuxia@zte.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP Linear Protection Applicability to MS-PW"
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires 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: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:58:11 -0000

Hello authors,

I have a generic question on the *co-existence* of PW monitoring at the
MS-PW level (PSMEG) and the individual segment level (PMEG). Firstly, I
believe there is no such restriction on having co-existence in monitoring
these independently..

Now lets say if a monitored mid segment (a simple PMEG) of a 5 segment MSPW
fails, its quite possible that the PSMEG also detects it at the endpoints.
Now, what would determine the switching priority? Wouldn't it become *
costlier* if the PSMEG does a MS-PW level switching? Instead, one could
prefer to switch to a backup path at a segment level itself. Is this
addressed?

Thanks,
Binny.

On 13 June 2011 18:13, Alexander Vainshtein <
Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:

> Dear Ma and all,
>
> Adding the PWE3 WG to my response.
>
>
>
> The PW redundancy mechanism supports linear protection of MS-PWs as one of
> many additional application use cases:
>
> Appendix A of the PW redundancy Bit draft<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit/?include_text=1>describes 5 application uses cases in addition to MS-PW with single-homed
> CEs (which is listed there as use case 5).
>
> And it is equally applicable to IP/MPLS and MPLS - with the help of  the Static
> PW Status Messages draft<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status/?include_text=1>(
> if, for whatever reason, you do not want  to, or cannot, use RFC 4447<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4447/?include_text=1>
> ).
>
>
>
> Hence I doubt the need for yet another PW redundancy  mechanism with narrow
> scope of applicability.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>      Sasha
>
>
>
> *From:* mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *ma.yuxia@zte.com.cn
> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2011 3:25 PM
> *To:* mpls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP Linear Protection
> Applicability to MS-PW"
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> The linear protection mechanism for LSP and PW(including MS-PW) should be
> the same and it is valuable to describe it clearly.
>
> BTW, there is a typo, it is "T-PE Z" instead of "T-PE B".
>
>  "
>   Figure 1 illustrates such a scenario, where two MS-PWs are
>   established between T-PE A and T-PE B, over S-PEs 1-2 and 3-4
>   respectively. Each PW segment is established over an LSP (e.g. PW-
>   s12 over LSP12).
>  "
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Cohn
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 4:14 PM
> To: mpls
> Subject: Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP Linear Protection
> Applicability to MS-PW"
> Importance: High
>
> Hi MPLSers,
>
> I uploaded "MPLS-TP Linear Protection Applicability to MS-PW" I-D
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cohn-mpls-tp-pw-protection-00)
>
> The abstract goes:
>
> One of the requirements of the MPLS transport profile [RFC 5654] is
> to provide linear protection for transport paths, which include both
> LSPs and PWs. The functional architecture described in [SurvivFwk]
> is applicable to both LSP and PWs, however [LinearProt] does not
> explicitly describe mechanisms for PW protection in MPLS-TP.
>
> This document extends the applicability of the linear protection
> mechanism described in [LinearProt] to MPLS-TP segmented PWs
> (MS-PWs) as defined in [RFC 6073].
>
> Could you please review it and send feedback to the mailing list or
> directly to the author?
>
> Looking forward to your feedback,
>
> Daniel
>
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
> information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI
> Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us
> by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies
> thereof.
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>