RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta
"MULEY Praveen" <Praveen.Muley@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 02 January 2008 04:00 UTC
Return-path: <pwe3-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9ulv-0004JA-Q8; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:00:03 -0500
Received: from pwe3 by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J9ulv-0004J5-2o for pwe3-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:00:03 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9ulu-0004Iw-MR for pwe3@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:00:02 -0500
Received: from audl751.usa.alcatel.com ([143.209.238.164]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9ult-0000zx-7e for pwe3@ietf.org; Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:00:02 -0500
Received: from usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com (usdalsbhs02.usa.alcatel.com [172.22.216.13]) by audl751.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id m023xtLA015486; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:59:55 -0600
Received: from USDALSMBS02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.10]) by usdalsbhs02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:59:54 -0600
Received: from USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.7]) by USDALSMBS02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:59:54 -0600
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:58:04 -0600
Message-ID: <FE3BEF03AFBA0C449C54BED2049C976C3B1FFB@USDALSMBS04.ad3.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <457D36D9D89B5B47BC06DA869B1C815D0604DE0F@exrad3.ad.rad.co.il>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta
Thread-Index: AchIfSJbSRsrzEjmQvK3SviAkQnm5wAAM97AAJYYA2AAhwk08A==
From: MULEY Praveen <Praveen.Muley@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com>, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2008 03:59:54.0400 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE9BA200:01C84CF3]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 143.209.238.34
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4e722e9456ead69ba4cdd21dd3d3600
Cc: Keren Zik-Meirom <keren_z@rad.com>, pwe3@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0953623423=="
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
For misconfig, we haven't adddressed currently. But if there is situation due to failures then the section 5.3.1 handles it. Thanks, Praveen ________________________________ From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 3:25 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: Keren Zik-Meirom; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta Sasha Yes, I agree that yours is another possible interpretation. However, I'm not sure that the behavior is much better. \personal ON Glad to see that you are still monitoring PWE at your new email address. \personal OFF Y(J)S ________________________________ From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:52 PM To: Yaakov Stein Cc: Keren Zik-Meirom; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta Yaakov and all, The cited section defines two PW states: <quote> o Active State A PW is considered to be in Active state when the PW labels are exchanged between its two endpoints in control plane, and the status bits exchanged between the endpoints indicate the PW is UP and Active at both endpoints. In this state user traffic can flow over the PW in both directions. o Standby State A PW is considered to be in Standby state when the PW labels are exchanged between its two endpoints in the control plane, but the status bits exchanged indicate the PW is in Standby state at one or both endpoints. In this state the endpoints MUST NOT forward data traffic over the PW but MAY allow PW OAM packets, e.g., VCCV, to be sent and received in order to test the liveliness of standby PWs <end quote> My conclusion from these definitions is that, in the scenario described in Yaakov's message, both PWs shall be in the Standby state (without any flapping) because each one shall be declared as Standby by one of the EPs. As a consequence, no traffic will be forwarded to any of the two PWs. Did I miss something? Regards, Sasha ________________________________ From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:39 PM To: pwe3@ietf.org Cc: Keren Zik-Meirom Subject: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draft-muley-dutta Hi all (and especially co-authors of draft-muley-dutta) Section 4.1. (Independent Mode) In draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-02 <http://smakd.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-b it/rfcmarkup?repository=/away/ietf&url=/away/ietf/all-ids/draft-muley-du tta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-02.txt> says: PW endpoint nodes independently select which PW they intend to make active and which PWs they intend to make standby. They advertise the corresponding Active/Standby forwarding state for each PW. Each PW endpoint compares local and remote status and uses the PW that is operationally UP at both endpoints and that shows Active states at both the local and remote endpoint. After which there is a discussion about what happens if an active PW is not found. I have a question about what happens when there are two perfectly good PWs. What happens if initially the two endpoints choose different PWs as the active ones ? I am assuming that an endpoint, seeing that the other declares the PW it intended as backup to be the active one, then chooses to switch and sends an active indication on the other PW. Meanwhile the other endpoint does the same, causing infinite flapping. Did I misunderstand something ? Y(J)S
_______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
- [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of draf… Yaakov Stein
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … Alexander Vainshtein
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … Yaakov Stein
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … Alexander Vainshtein
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … MULEY Praveen
- RE: [PWE3] question on the "independent mode" of … MULEY Praveen