Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP LinearProtection Applicability to MS-PW"
"Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com> Mon, 13 June 2011 13:38 UTC
Return-Path: <nurit.sprecher@nsn.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 73CEC9E8028; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_INDEX_PARAM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_29=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 dPIPI113eM7a; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF4C9E8009; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 06:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p5DDcpLg015945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:38:51 +0200
Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p5DDcpHr006124; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:38:51 +0200
Received: from DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.25]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:38:50 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC29CF.3ADAC149"
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:38:48 +0200
Message-ID: <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326403F64991@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=WR1tojQ69E9tG6n9geRvVXMc50g@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls] [PWE3] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP LinearProtection Applicability to MS-PW"
Thread-Index: AcwpzjaHFo2CCA4qTaOKh1pH4XerfgAAG31Q
References: <OF7EF3F6D6.7AE4C202-ON482578AE.00430DDE-482578AE.0044404E@zte.com.cn><A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76E9BDCA9A38@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com><077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A5326403F64953@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net> <BANLkTi=WR1tojQ69E9tG6n9geRvVXMc50g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>
To: ext binny jeshan <binnyjeshan@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2011 13:38:50.0976 (UTC) FILETIME=[3AE1FE00:01CC29CF]
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 13:38:56 -0000
Hi, For end-to-end, you can do it on the client service level. If the intention is to protect against a S/T-PE failure, I think the solution should be efficient and not necessarily on the end-to-end PW level. We may come soon with idea how to do it. Best regards, Nurit From: ext binny jeshan [mailto:binnyjeshan@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 4:31 PM To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) Cc: ext Alexander Vainshtein; ma.yuxia@zte.com.cn; mpls@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP LinearProtection Applicability to MS-PW" 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/?inclu de_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
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… binny jeshan
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… binny jeshan
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Maarten vissers
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-T… Daniel Cohn
- [PWE3] 答复: RE: [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MP… ma.yuxia
- [PWE3] R: [mpls] Seeking feedback on I-D "MPLS-TP… D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo