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

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Fri, 08 August 2014 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <yakov@juniper.net>
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 BC0AE1B29E1; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 ynowV0AuPLsV; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0235.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22E2A1B2A54; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR05CA0074.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.20.44) by DM2PR05MB733.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.178.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.14; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:02:50 +0000
Received: from BL2FFO11FD044.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c09::130) by BLUPR05CA0074.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:855::44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1005.10 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:02:49 +0000
Received: from P-EMF01-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.239.15) by BL2FFO11FD044.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.990.10 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:02:49 +0000
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMF01-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:02:47 -0700
Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id s78E2kn63116; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:02:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
Message-ID: <201408081402.s78E2kn63116@magenta.juniper.net>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <53E498D4.6000107@pi.nu>
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> <53E498D4.6000107@pi.nu>
X-MH-In-Reply-To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> message dated "Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:31:00 +0200."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <95677.1407506566.1@juniper.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 07:02:46 -0700
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.239.15; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(377424004)(199002)(189002)(24454002)(51704005)(81156004)(50986999)(110136001)(99396002)(102836001)(76482001)(77982001)(16796002)(107046002)(95666004)(54356999)(76176999)(93886004)(106466001)(105596002)(21056001)(85306004)(74662001)(44976005)(46406003)(97756001)(74502001)(97736001)(79102001)(81542001)(46102001)(64706001)(20776003)(68736004)(69596002)(4396001)(81342001)(80022001)(86362001)(83322001)(47776003)(23726002)(87936001)(6806004)(83072002)(50466002)(92726001)(84676001)(85852003); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR05MB733; H:P-EMF01-SAC.jnpr.net; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
X-Forefront-PRVS: 02973C87BC
Received-SPF: SoftFail (protection.outlook.com: domain of transitioning juniper.net discourages use of 66.129.239.15 as permitted sender)
Authentication-Results: spf=softfail (sender IP is 66.129.239.15) smtp.mailfrom=yakov@juniper.net;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pwe3/kL4GLk_Wwd0dCT0sde2CE6-Azz0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, "Eric Rosen (erosen)" <erosen@cisco.com>, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>
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 14:02:53 -0000

Loa,

> 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?

To answer your question let me quote from "Network Recovery" by JP
Vasseur, Mario Pickavet, Piet Demeester (Section 5.8.1, page 336):

  With global protection, rerouting is performed by the head-end
  LSR, which means that this requires for the head-end LSR to receive
  the failure indication to reroute the affected traffic onto their
  respective backup paths (whose paths have been precomputed and
  signaled). So in terms of recovery time, the delta between global
  and local protection is the failure indication signal propagation
  time to the head-end LSR.

Yakov.