IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Sun, 10 August 2014 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 DF2041A06C3 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Z6MYsT2qgVZv for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1lrp0010.outbound.protection.outlook.com [213.199.154.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7025C1A06C2 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 03:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.110.144) by AM3PR03MB609.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.242.109.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1005.10; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:22:51 +0000
Received: from AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) by AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.110.144]) with mapi id 15.00.1005.008; Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:22:50 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01
Thread-Index: AQHPqymWveYGLBru1kCsLuzIRj9tdJu3CWCAgAA8XgCAAPc/IIABBtiAgAg4EiaAAOtlgIAAs2DLgAA1qVCAASlTgIAAxW1QgAGWRICAAnyxroAAUUlrgAAN14A=
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:22:50 +0000
Message-ID: <ee672591563c40fda0cd2debd238db26@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <201407251524.s6PFOPn92012@magenta.juniper.net> <53D79504.4050904@cisco.com> <a8d070daae424ec0b9f338edfd0cde7c@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <04f15bedf2be4c7480d3e9ca01bdfd7f@BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <2597291f7b074922b690e4b06999cf1a@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>, <30e13900814f41a681151971cbe9ebef@BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1407215578702.64387@ecitele.com>, <2280b8e0d5f94a60badab91a2237181b@BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1407304503657.72312@ecitele.com> <f8c4d4382dda4f7d94ce61b4b421fe4f@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <046050cb2d254a139b4650b2d7f93075@BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <09ab595ab24a46a0a4e87ebeb2cd185a@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>, <2afb5c963e054aef929f38dcb3defa07@BY2PR05MB728.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>, <1407647722694.18724@ecitele.com> <004289D0-C473-4C1D-8A76-B42757F599A2@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <004289D0-C473-4C1D-8A76-B42757F599A2@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.234.56.21]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 029976C540
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019004)(6009001)(252514010)(377454003)(199002)(189002)(106356001)(2656002)(92566001)(74502001)(74662001)(19625215002)(46102001)(85852003)(20776003)(31966008)(77982001)(101416001)(87936001)(76576001)(54356999)(83072002)(4396001)(110136001)(76482001)(99396002)(16236675004)(79102001)(15202345003)(33646002)(19580395003)(105586002)(19300405004)(81542001)(83322001)(81342001)(107046002)(66066001)(85306004)(50986999)(64706001)(76176999)(93886004)(19580405001)(21056001)(80022001)(86362001)(74316001)(15975445006)(95666004)(24736002)(108616003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR03MB609; H:AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ee672591563c40fda0cd2debd238db26AM3PR03MB612eurprd03pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pwe3/KeXDvhOPa_hpQ4cD7CvNb81wjrI
Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "Eric Rosen (erosen)" <erosen@cisco.com>
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
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: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:22:57 -0000

Stewart,

My reading of your email is like following:

1.       Within the scope of the draft the PLR is always the penultimate P LSR on the LSP terminated by the Primary PE. I believe that the draft states that explicitly

2.       The PLR cannot differentiate between the failure of the link connecting it to the Primary PE and failure of the Primary PE in a timely manner; hence every time such a link fails, the PLR assumes failure of the Primary PE to be on the safe side. T

3.       With ECMP in the PSN, there typically would be several LSPs terminated by the Primary PE, each with its own PLR. So if the link between one of these PLRs and the Primary PE fails, it would apply the mechanisms defined in the draft, while the rest of the PLRs would not do anything.

4.       As a consequence, the dual-homed PE would receive some flows of the traffic crossing a flow-aware pw from one AC and some - from the other AC.  The draft does not specify that this is possible and that the CE should be able to cope with this situation.

Is my interpretation correct?

Regards,
       Sasha
Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
Mobile: 054-9266302

From: Stewart Bryant (stbryant) [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 12:24 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: Yimin Shen; Yakov Rekhter; pwe3@ietf.org; Eric Rosen (erosen)
Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01


ECMP paths to xPEs naturally form and disappear in LDP PSNs (they are a fundamental property of that PSN type) and it is entirely normal  to find an ECMP to an xPE.

So, if you have a PW that is load balancing (again quite normal) and one of the attachments to the xPE fails, you can legitimately end  up with some traffic on one egress AC and some on another.

please you confirm that this design works correctly when a PE gets its traffic from both ACs?

Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email