IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01 - RFC4447

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Fri, 08 August 2014 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 ECF1C1A0391; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 02:31:02 -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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 T67Kow9_5ZB1; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 02:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D5D21A0344; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 02:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BD1FB18013DA; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 11:30:58 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <53E498D4.6000107@pi.nu>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:31:00 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
References: Your message of Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:59:49 -0000. <9696d0db139d46ffaad7be11340215e8@AM3PR03MB612.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <16167.1407340459@erosen-lnx>, <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E76AAAA7F4@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <22D4AECA-2D36-4F79-98CB-96E4B9BDC126@cisco.com> <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E76AAAB6F9@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E76AAAB6F9@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pwe3/Y1ag46aycEnHh-_SzRhiPv8zRHE
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "Eric Rosen (erosen)" <erosen@cisco.com>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01 - RFC4447
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: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 09:31:03 -0000

Authors, Mingui, Stewart

On 2014-08-08 04:46, Mingui Zhang wrote:
> Hi Stewart,
>
> I think authors would say the S-PE stitching method involves the control plane processing during the repair procedure. They emphasized their method uses data plane & local repair, which can be faster.
> Here, I want to raise one issue:

It seems that we take it for granted that the method proposed on this
draft is faster than e.g. the e2e protection a la mpls-tp. Why is that?
If we have implementations of both, do we have any real measurements?

/Loa

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email