Re: the shen-mpls-nnhop Was:(Re: thoughts on draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-00.txt)

[Naiming Shen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Loa,

Loa Andersson said the following on 05/17/2005 04:07 AM:
> Naiming,
> I checked this (thanks for the pointer) I actually forgotten
> that the IPR discussion was realted to this document.
> 
> The -01 version has also dated so I guess it would be a good
> idea to post version -02.
> 

Will do soon.

> What I see happening in the April -04 discussion is that the
> issues from Seoul was not at all discussed (much less solved).
> And further issues added (mostly the IPR, which now seems to
> be solved).
> 
> I also saw very little support for the draft as such.
> 
> What concerns me here is that this is a solution without
> clear requirements.

I think the needs start emerging, any important services
riding on top of IP/MPLS transport infrastructure needs
fast convergence services. It's not reasonable to assume
only RSVP-TE LSPs need fast reroute, and other
network transport does not. This nnhop-ldp draft is to
facilitate the LDP based MPLS network for FRR with
node protection. I have been talking to some providers
in the past year, there are certainly interests in
this service.

> 
> That is not to say that we don't have potential applications,
> e.g. the pwe3 multihop pw's or the not via frr. Neither of those
> schemes have yet been adopted as working group documents.
> It is even doubtful if the mh pw's are within charter.
> 
> If there is a need to add nnhop label retrievement for
> LDP, that should be brought to the MPLS working group by the
> working group or party that have that need as a requirement.

I plan to submit the new version and open the discussion in
MPLS working group soon. Thanks for the support.

> 
> In the mean time the answer is if you need to do FFR in MPLS
> enabled IP networks you should use RSVP-TE.

The current FRR in MPLS ONLY allows the protection for RSVP-TE.
and as far as I know of, most of the MPLS enabled network today
is LDP based, they certainly need fast convergence/reroute too.
And this draft is one solution to facilitate that.

thanks.
- Naiming

> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> Even though it is
> not fuly clear that
> 
> Naiming Shen wrote:
> 
>>
>> Loa,
>>
>> Check out the MPLS mailing list archive April 2004 with
>> subject of "discussion on nexthop fast-reroute drafts".
>> I posted the mail first on the list asking for two drafts,
>>
>> draft-shen-nhop-fastreroute-00.txt
>> draft-shen-mpls-ldp-nnhop-label-00.txt
>>
>> to be adopted as the working group document in mpls-wg.
>> there were some syntax comments and some IPR dicussions
>> followed. the IPR issue should be fixed and we also
>> posted version-1 drafts after that. I can post the
>> new versions and start the discussion again.
>>
>> thanks.
>> - Naiming
>>
>> Loa Andersson said the following on 05/16/2005 04:03 AM:
>>
>>> Naiming,
>>>
>>> could you give me the pointer to "the last time" you are
>>> refereing to. I find "the latest" in the reference to this
>>> from the Seoul meeting. There were two question posed, do
>>> we want to take LDP there and will it actually achieve
>>> what the authors claim. Both questions were left for
>>> further discussion on the MPLS mailing list. As far as
>>> I remember this discussion has not taken place.
>>>
>>> /Loa
>>>
>>> Naiming Shen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Loa,
>>>>
>>>> Last time the issue was with the wording of IPR statement in the
>>>> previous version of NNHOP LDP draft, we plan to refresh the
>>>> document in the mpls wg soon.
>>>>
>>>> thanks.
>>>> - Naiming
>>>>
>>>> Loa Andersson said the following on 05/02/2005 12:55 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> actually the Naimings draft did not go anywhere when discussed in the
>>>>> MPLS wg, this change to LDP would have to be taken up in the mpls 
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.      Explicit tunnels are needed, which means that targeted 
>>>>>>> LDP sessions are necessary to have this support LDP traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. In the case of node protection we could also using Naiming's 
>>>>>> scheme of next-next hop LDP advertisement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rtgwg mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Rtgwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg