Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP LinearProtection Applicability to MS-PW"
Maarten vissers <maarten.vissers@huawei.com> Tue, 14 June 2011 11:41 UTC
Return-Path: <maarten.vissers@huawei.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 8A83611E8097; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_29=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 v7W2Bin0ZVL1; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrga04-in.huawei.com (lhrga04-in.huawei.com [195.33.106.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8AA511E8071; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 04:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lhrga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LMS00A4P350BQ@lhrga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:41:24 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LHREML201-EDG.china.huawei.com ([172.18.7.118]) by lhrga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LMS0020D34ZIS@lhrga04-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:41:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.30) by LHREML201-EDG.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.188) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:41:17 +0100
Received: from LHREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::f93f:958b:5b06:4f36]) by LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:41:22 +0100
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:41:22 +0000
From: Maarten vissers <maarten.vissers@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326403F64953@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net>
X-Originating-IP: [10.47.154.38]
To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>
Message-id: <D62E6669B3621943B7632961308F8F9E0DC67EFD@LHREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_OxQQfV0EyXT1AJcxP7ctMw)"
Content-language: en-US
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Thread-topic: [mpls] [PWE3] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP LinearProtection Applicability to MS-PW"
Thread-index: AQHMKco1J8PEH1bAJECgcknBiPna2pS7RefQ
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
References: <OF7EF3F6D6.7AE4C202-ON482578AE.00430DDE-482578AE.0044404E@zte.com.cn> <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76E9BDCA9A38@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com> <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326403F64953@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP LinearProtection 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: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:41:27 -0000
Nurit, If I translate your proposal in terms of SDH protection, then your proposal would imply that LOVC (e.g. VC-12, VC-11 protection should not be deployed, instead only HOVC (VC-4, VC-3) protection should be deployed. We all know that the SDH network has many protected LOVC connections, and that this is scaling well. My question is therefore why protecting MS-PW connections (and Service-LSP connections) would not scale? Regards, Maarten From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) Sent: 13 June 2011 15:02 To: ext Alexander Vainshtein; ma.yuxia@zte.com.cn Cc: mpls@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP LinearProtection Applicability to MS-PW" Hi, I would like to second Sasha. End-to-end PW protection (with diverse paths) does not scale, and put hard restrictions on the utilization of the resources. MPLS-TP PWs are carried across the network inside MPLS-TP LSPs. Therefore, an obvious way to provide protection for a PW is to protect the LSP that carries it. If the PW is a multi-segment PW, then LSP recovery can only protect the PW in individual segments. This means that a single LSP recovery action cannot protect against a failure of a PW switching point (an S-PE). When protecting against an AC or T/S-PE failure by dual connectivity, PW redundancy mechanisms provide means for the PEs to coordinate over which LSP the traffic of the PW is carried. I also doubt why there is a need for additional mechanism. Best regards, Nurit From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 3:43 PM To: ma.yuxia@zte.com.cn Cc: mpls@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP LinearProtection Applicability to MS-PW" 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.
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… binny jeshan
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… binny jeshan
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Maarten vissers
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- [PWE3] 答复: RE: [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MP… ma.yuxia
- [PWE3] R: [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP… D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo