Re: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection-00.txt
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Mon, 14 July 2014 15:25 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
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 B536F1A0A86 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.151
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 UfZ69YYX9Rwk for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98EAF1A0A91 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15274; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1405351519; x=1406561119; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=d2mOoQ7/QNehKJTZDoiH4iGi8ra6L6YG/dhVboyibtc=; b=Ma22o6DR037VxUzV7M5obzJ8THjNZDaSBsLMmPxgstY52Jw7+eSwKiq5 XNZF2nwu2jMKDFL2L0NFBrf+UhPpiS7L0kzAdFLQSoN6nJavFGOaXIYQp ml9u9x7e+yI/BnkLvapOLv5lJrGqCPI8BUp/4j44h/3zarM9mdxvON2GR 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqUEAPj0w1OtJssW/2dsb2JhbABZg2DCIQEJh0MBgSt1hAQBAQQBAQFrCgEQCxgJFggHCQMCAQIBFR8RBg0BBQIBAQWIOQ23KpBhF49LBwmEOgWbDoFKhUiGeIYUg0Vr
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,659,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217";a="106594061"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2014 15:25:16 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6EFPFVs007725 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:25:15 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id s6EFPErW019481; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:25:15 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <53C3F65A.6020305@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:25:14 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
References: <20140701170314.8591.2298.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <53BFA9D3.20800@gmail.com> <53C3AECF.1000802@cisco.com> <CAA=duU3QDtN_3Y0GWjYc09-qYw9j=hTeUR0v6SFwD761w7g+1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU3QDtN_3Y0GWjYc09-qYw9j=hTeUR0v6SFwD761w7g+1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080601010002040005010109"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pwe3/uXAG2JR-55t5O4XfDcgEtSVHWag
Cc: pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, "huubatwork@gmail.com" <huubatwork@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:25:25 -0000
Andy, An overarching question - SS-PW and/or MS-PW? MPLS-TP does not say much about MS-PW and I am not sure whether or not they are needed. In the case of SS-PW the LSP are entirely congruent, so presumably your concern is bandwidth of the underlying LSP causing you to need to spread your repair across a number of LSPs and thus the LSP and PW repair are mutually exclusive - correct? Stewart On 14/07/2014 15:49, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Stewart, > > Thanks for the comment. This is obviously just an initial draft, we > would appreciate any further comments from you and the list on where > we can add detail in future revisions. The overall intention is that > operation will be basically identical to that for statically > provisioned MPLS-TP LSPs in RFC 6378. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com > <mailto:stbryant@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Huub, > > This is going to need quite a lot more detail, both > in terms of specific updates to RFC6378/7271 and in terms > of operation in the PW context. > > Stewart > > > On 11/07/2014 10:09, Huub van Helvoort wrote: > > All, > > After publication of RFC6378 and RFC7271 The ITU-T has approved > recommendation G.8131 based on these RFCs. > > However, during the drafting of this recommendation operators > expressed their concern that this recommendation only applies > to LSPs, and not to PWs, in particular MS-PWs. > > To address their concern we started working on this draft. > When it becomes an RFC it will be used to extend G.8131 to > include PWs. > > Cheers, Huub. > > ============= > > On 01-07-14 19:03, internet-drafts@ietf.org > <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. > > > Title : Encapsulation for PSC for > Multi-Segment Pseudowires > Authors : Huub van Helvoort > Loa Andersson > Andrew G. Malis > Jongyoon Shin > Lei Wang > Alessandro D'Alessandro > Filename : > draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection-00.txt > Pages : 4 > Date : 2014-07-01 > > Abstract: > In RFC 6378 'MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear > Protection', as > well as in the later updates of this RFC, the > Protection State > Coordiantion (PSC) protocol was defined for MPLS LSPs > only. This > draft extends RFC 6378 to be applicable for > pseudowires as well. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-protection-00 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the > time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at > tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > > > > -- > For corporate legal information go to: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pwe3 mailing list > pwe3@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3 -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
- Re: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-pr… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-pr… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-pr… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-pr… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] I-D Action: draft-shawam-pwe3-ms-pw-pr… Andrew G. Malis