Re: [PWE3] [mpls] 1+1 linear LSP protection and MPLS-TP data plane: are they compatible?

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Mon, 20 June 2011 06:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 10ECD21F8598; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.712
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.712 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 XTPWOZrFQdbS; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com [147.234.242.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17AC421F8595; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 93eaf2e7-b7b6cae000001c92-ab-4dfeedd2b4cc
Received: from ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ( [147.234.245.181]) by ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 24.F5.07314.2DDEEFD4; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:50:59 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com ([147.234.244.212]) by ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ([147.234.245.181]) with mapi; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:51:05 +0300
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com>, "davarish@yahoo.com" <davarish@yahoo.com>, "mpls-bounces@ietf.org" <mpls-bounces@ietf.org>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:51:01 +0300
Thread-Topic: [mpls] [PWE3] 1+1 linear LSP protection and MPLS-TP data plane: are they compatible?
Thread-Index: Acwt+GKfP7ICXhYOQty4JE+eqpbXyAAPF4qMAB2hhpoAGDsEAAACc5zg
Message-ID: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76EA32634C2D@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
References: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76E9BD80C97E@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>, <BANLkTim=0LAmsft=JnqFQYODfa17nfirDg@mail.gmail.com><A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76E9BD80C97F@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>, <1398490709-1308429804-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-749160581-@b4.c27.bise6.blackberry>, <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76E9BD80C980@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com> <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76E9C21266AA@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com> <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6A93138B372@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD6A93138B372@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA2WTa0wTWRTH985M2wEZMxSwV+JjHN+PknbR7Gy0RhOzW2KIxkeMxgSG6bWd 2E4nnWKs+0H0i5GNqJH4qKygAR/4IKIfimiUGj/UJ4oYbVQiQnia7BKCi5p2ZzorYpxP/3PP /5zfvZNzSNxcacolRSmIAhLvZY3pxJH+oWFr24dEoa28xcQ1HCjgWnr2Am7kaLeBa7793MTF 6y4YuIqh6wT3uLsKrDA5wx2PjM7Kz1cNzqbwG5OztnYUc4bDd7G1hi1lYBkvSf4gH0SMCymC g10bEHfwQohlRJeDtbOM7OUF5ENS0MHysowkF7s8nfnhW6baRIlBkuB3iZLbwRasX2PluCW/ Wu3s8jkz7flL0zd4RIVBVh8vehkfUhTejRj1pPg67rm674FJPrVwZ7Lqi6kMRGaWgzQS0ovh 0+ZRQteTYOvbBmM5SCfNdDOAxweaCD04CmBf05+45jLSDth48U3KlU1fBnD/w+OpAKcfYrDi 74tGzUXQs+G5RCKls2gBvmivNmg6m3bBuninUde/wT2nXpk0TdFr4P4rBzEdV0HAuwd7VTZJ ptFbYOwjpnmAer+P9y+lNE5bYLyrGtPvTcPam09wXefAvvcJg+7Pga/3NQDdvwjWNA8Zdb0Q nj09gOvcTBg70fX/+yfDlvMviUPAEh6HCI8rD48rD48rrwFEPcgRvXKwxOe22fOQIAaRF+UJ fl8j0KepJwI+Vc+KApoEbAblsSYKzQZ+hxLyRcFkEmNzqM5B9Whiid8V8vCKpyhQ6kVKFEAS Z7OpovdqjnLxoV0o4P+a4tS/fBjPnSD41bmVgkX5Ntt3AWuhuoXBQjPtVuduO0IyCnwtnUKS LKRWq+NtzgwgN9q5TfQGv6UxMk0jZ6jk/C6NrMi8TxHdev4+yCfPXO6LAvLsycEoMBOSX0K5 FqpEa0drVk+pNNZNW6bdyWSyH1jUl2dRvObKUFdtrF+/isJUVLI/hVK3ZCyVWwZWnh7ZW7ch 9s/USJu8imTi/94bKZhWdW3dg9KBa00RhZkR+n1uZbLmWGZhny0299Gczs+W6fKdtvqs+t52 7NnmTa03hisy5mdvrHy+Mr60wz36S0/L7Pbe4rwO342GxIRhi2HriGf9XxMbMeGPtLe1t8oj P53Iixb/7HzXOmv7ppJ5MZZQPLx9AR5Q+P8AN0qvkycEAAA=
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, Vladimir Kleiner <Vladimir.Kleiner@ecitele.com>, Mishael Wexler <Mishael.Wexler@ecitele.com>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, Oren Gal <Oren.Gal@ecitele.com>, John Shirron <John.Shirron@ecitele.com>, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)" <stbryant@cisco.com>, Rotem Cohen <Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] 1+1 linear LSP protection and MPLS-TP data plane: are they compatible?
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, 20 Jun 2011 06:51:12 -0000

Shahram,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.

I doubt the value of two special interfaces: IMHO at least one of the LSPs (Active) should be terminated (i.e. the ILM for its action would look "Pop and look up the next label").

But the "leaky drop" interface seems to be the right thing to do. The name is nice.

I wonder if adding a clarification would benefit the linear protection draft?

Regards,
     Sasha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shahram Davari [mailto:davari@broadcom.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:41 AM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein; davarish@yahoo.com; mpls-bounces@ietf.org;
> Greg Mirsky
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; Vladimir Kleiner; Mishael Wexler; pwe3; Oren Gal;
> John Shirron; Rotem Cohen; Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)
> Subject: RE: [mpls] [PWE3] 1+1 linear LSP protection and MPLS-TP data
> plane:are they compatible?
> 
> Hi Sahsa,
> 
> Actually what you can do is to define 2 special interfaces, one for
> working and one for protection LSP. Then for working interface, set the
> behavior as pop and forward as normal, and for protection interface pop
> and forward to control plane only reserved labels. In case of failure
> the behavior of the two interfaces must be changed.
> 
> IS that correct?
> 
> Thx
> Shahram
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Alexander Vainshtein
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:14 AM
> To: davarish@yahoo.com; mpls-bounces@ietf.org; Greg Mirsky
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; Vladimir Kleiner; Mishael Wexler; pwe3; Oren Gal;
> John Shirron; Rotem Cohen; Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)
> Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] 1+1 linear LSP protection and MPLS-TP data
> plane:are they compatible?
> 
> Shahram, Greg and all,
> After some thought:
> One way to model selection in 1+1 linear protection architecture could
> be to define a "special" internal interface in the box and to define
> the ILM action on the tunnel label of an inactive LSP as "Pop and
> forward to special interface".
> 
> The special interface then would then forward resulting labeled packets
> with a reserved top label to control and discard all the rest. This
> behavior would not be part of "normal" MPLS data plane hence no
> contradictions with its architecture.
> 
> I assume that this is roughly the formal model for what Shahram and
> Greg have said.
> 
> Regards,
>      Sasha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Alexander Vainshtein
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 7:04 AM
> To: davarish@yahoo.com; mpls-bounces@ietf.org; Greg Mirsky
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; Vladimir Kleiner; Mishael Wexler; pwe3; Oren Gal;
> John Shirron; Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) Rotem Cohen
> Subject: RE: [mpls] [PWE3] 1+1 linear LSP protection and MPLS-TP data
> plane:are they compatible?
> 
> Shahram,
> The problem IMHO is in the combination of two points :
> 
> - At the LSP level both LSP OAM and PW traffic look exactly the same
> (after popping the Tunnel label a labeled packet remains). You can only
> differentiate between them when you look up the next label in the stack
> 
> - When you look at the next label after having popped the tunnel label,
> PW packets received from both active and inactive LSPs look exactly the
> same with the same label from the per-platform label space.
> 
> IMO this means that you cannot describe the desired behavior in the
> terms of RFC 3031 and 3032.
> 
> Hopefully this clarifies my question.
> 
> Regards,
>      Sasha
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: davarish@yahoo.com [davarish@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 11:43 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein; mpls-bounces@ietf.org; Greg Mirsky
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; Vladimir Kleiner; Mishael Wexler; pwe3; Oren Gal;
> John Shirron; Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com) Rotem Cohen
> Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] 1+1 linear LSP protection and MPLS-TP data
> plane:are they compatible?
> 
> Sasha
> 
> All traffic except LSP OAM traffic from protection LSP must be
> discarded in Rx. So what is the issue?
> 
> Thx
> Shahram
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
> Sender: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:58:41
> To: Greg Mirsky<gregimirsky@gmail.com>
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mpls@ietf.org>; Vladimir
> Kleiner<Vladimir.Kleiner@ecitele.com>; Mishael
> Wexler<Mishael.Wexler@ecitele.com>; pwe3<pwe3@ietf.org>; Oren
> Gal<Oren.Gal@ecitele.com>; John Shirron<John.Shirron@ecitele.com>;
> Stewart Bryant \(stbryant@cisco.com\)<stbryant@cisco.com>; Rotem
> Cohen<Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] 1+1 linear LSP protection and MPLS-TP data
> plane:
>  are they compatible?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 



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.