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

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