Return-Path: 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 ; 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: References: Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:28:08 +0530 Message-ID: From: binny jeshan To: Alexander Vainshtein Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d27c62953fac04a5977843 Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" , "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:58:11 -0000 --0016e6d27c62953fac04a5977843 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 draftdescribes 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( > if, for whatever reason, you do not want to, or cannot, use RFC 4447 > ). > > > > 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 > > --0016e6d27c62953fac04a5977843 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello authors,

I have a generic question on the co-existence = of PW monitoring at the MS-PW level (PSMEG) and the individual segment leve= l (PMEG). Firstly, I believe there is no such restriction on having co-exis= tence 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 endpoi= nts. Now, what would determine the switching priority? Wouldn't it beco= me 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> wro= te:

Dear Ma and all,

Addin= g the PWE3 WG to my response.

=A0

The PW redundancy mechanism su= pports linear protection of MS-PWs as one of many additional application us= e cases:

Appen= dix A of the PW redundancy Bit draft describes 5 application uses cases in addition to MS-PW with single-homed= CEs (which is listed there as use case 5).

And i= t is equally applicable to IP/MPLS and MPLS - with the help of =A0the Static PW Status Messages draft( if, f= or whatever reason, you do not want =A0to, or cannot, use RFC = 4447).

=A0

Hence I doubt the need for yet another PW redundancy =A0mechanism with = narrow scope of applicability.

=A0

Regards,

=A0=A0=A0=A0 Sasha

=A0

From:= mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf= Of ma.yuxia@z= te.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"

=A0

Hi all,

The linear protec= tion mechanism for LSP and PW(inclu= ding 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". <= /span>

=A0"
=A0 Figure 1 illustrates such a scenario, where two MS-PWs are
=A0 established between T-PE A and T-PE B, over S-PEs 1-2 and 3-4
=A0 respectively. Each PW segment is established over an LSP (e.g. PW-
=A0 s12 over LSP12).
=A0"

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Cohn
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 4:14 PM
To: mpls
Su= bject: Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP Linear Protection
Applicabi= lity to MS-PW"
Importance: High

Hi MPLSers,

I uploade= d "MPLS-TP Linear Protection Applicability to MS-PW" I-D
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cohn-mpls-tp-pw-protect= ion-00)

The abstract goes:

One of the requirements of the = MPLS transport profile [RFC 5654] is
to provide linear protection for tr= ansport paths, which include both
LSPs and PWs. The functional architect= ure described in [SurvivFwk]
is applicable to both LSP and PWs, however [LinearProt] does not
explici= tly describe mechanisms for PW protection in MPLS-TP.

This document extends the applicability of the linear protection
mechani= sm described in [LinearProt] to MPLS-TP segmented PWs
(MS-PWs) as defin= ed in [RFC 6073].

Could you please review it and send feedback to th= e mailing list or
directly to the author?

Looking forward to your feedback,

D= aniel

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informa= tion 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, p= hone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3


--0016e6d27c62953fac04a5977843--