IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [PWE3] draft-hao-pwe3-iccp-extension-for-msp-00

hao.hongjie@zte.com.cn Tue, 05 July 2011 05:37 UTC

Return-Path: <hao.hongjie@zte.com.cn>
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 BCC631F0C3F for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 22:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.838
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.838 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 8orIbnD6d30O for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 22:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1491F0C39 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 22:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 48641397396305; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:36:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 13796.1397396305; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:37:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by mse01.zte.com.cn id p655bfJr059128 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:37:41 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from hao.hongjie@zte.com.cn)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p655XNHc055626; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 13:33:23 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from hao.hongjie@zte.com.cn)
Message-Id: <201107050537.p655bfJr059128@mse01.zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <4E12259E.4070902@cisco.com>
To: stbryant@cisco.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
From: hao.hongjie@zte.com.cn
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:33:05 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-07-05 13:33:24, Serialize complete at 2011-07-05 13:33:24
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 001E59A3482578C4_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn p655bfJr059128
X-MSS: AUDITRELEASE@mse01.zte.com.cn
Cc: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-hao-pwe3-iccp-extension-for-msp-00
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, 05 Jul 2011 05:37:50 -0000

Hi Stewart,

Thank for your attention. 

Figure 1 in ICCP draft described the generic multi-chassis redundancy 
model. When the network is SDH network, it is just the situation we 
talked. 
ICCP draft specified the pseudowire redundancy application TLVs and 
multi-chassis LACP application TLVs. But we need MSP application TLVs to 
synchronize the state and configuration data of MSP group between PE1 and 
PE2. So we extended the TLVs to support the situation in the draft 
"draft-hao-pwe3-iccp-extension-for-msp-00"

Best regards,
Hongjie Hao








On 04/07/2011 12:16, hao.hongjie@zte.com.cn wrote: 

Dear all, 


We meet a problem to deploy ICCP in SDH network. The figure below 
described it. The PE1 and PE2 run the linear multiplex section 
protection(MSP) desceibed in the G.841 to protect the SDH network. But 
they are not in the same location. So they need a machanism to 
synchronize the state and configuration data between the PEs. 

                                      +----+ 
                    <---Pseudowire--->|PE1 | 
                                      |    |\ 
                                      +----+  \ ------>Access Network 
                                        |       \ 
                                        |         \+----+ 
                                        |          | CE | 
                                        |          |    | 
                                        |         /+----+ 
                                        |       / 
                                      +----+  / 
                                      |PE2 |/ 
                    <---Pseudowire--->|    | 
                                      +----+ 

We submit a draft to slove the problem. It describes the extention of 
ICCP's application TLVs to support the MSP application. 

I would be greatful if you could review the draft 
"draft-hao-pwe3-iccp-extension-for-msp-00" and post comments on the 
mailing list. 


Best regards, 
Hongjie Hao



This scenario looks similar to Figure1 in the ICCP draft.

Please can you clarify the problem in the ICCP draft that you are 
addressing.

Thanks

Stewart

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3



--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status