Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP LinearProtection Applicability to MS-PW"

binny jeshan <binnyjeshan@gmail.com> Mon, 13 June 2011 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <binnyjeshan@gmail.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 EDB799E8012; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_29=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 yrOPAFa9RBqN; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5099E8007; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yie30 with SMTP id 30so1205845yie.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zqg45oH2ohCDPaIYxZTNC7ujPGS4+h5d2kLCSSqUpE0=; b=dIsUOwujnmO+5iLY5bMdvXdMorKMlGkOQjZLJqheWmdjUFitEEzZg493dPsER/6mh7 Y1n3zPoJg5yuW7jkuha38h3d3LsWrTRfKiwCHakjfsYkDmry7vM0s1wvMWnS7Ya1Nk6F GtWe/exVtX4LaDTJcWVZQ0s/RzXTY7XK4TGqY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=NuP8CpQ14OuyNlC/+1jhAVOLez4woWH4lsV5aL9uBEljEhOKXNQTB0feGR5tN5Kitk JPCydTwbX17Wv0swYuxRERMHJxs2gRtu4su0ZTiOlQvUSJiVRIXa2LN7QNDxqEljips2 bMUFPCiDqZDVW8wRm1Na8JMggUCT+GvG5ob5U=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.175.33 with SMTP id c33mr5054575anp.93.1307971888682; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.226.6 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326403F64953@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net>
References: <OF7EF3F6D6.7AE4C202-ON482578AE.00430DDE-482578AE.0044404E@zte.com.cn> <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76E9BDCA9A38@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com> <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326403F64953@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:01:28 +0530
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=WR1tojQ69E9tG6n9geRvVXMc50g@mail.gmail.com>
From: binny jeshan <binnyjeshan@gmail.com>
To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c5c006cd168904a597efba"
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, ma.yuxia@zte.com.cn
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: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:31:31 -0000

Hello,

Though on one side I'd think its costlier to do a MS-PW level protection
considering the resource usages, pre-configuration and monitoring overload,
on the other i would think - why wouldn't having such a mechanism help in
case if a local repair procedure fails ( failure in protection switch) for a
underlying broken LSP or a mid-PW segment. A provider would never hesitate
look into his pocket to have an end-end level protection considering a risky
situation for an high priority service that he runs on the MS-PW. Wouldn't
he? I believe he could be only concerned in the view of giving precedence to
efficient switching the server layers, and not messing up with multiple
switches happening for one failure.

-Binny.

On 13 June 2011 18:32, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) <
nurit.sprecher@nsn.com> wrote:

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