Re: [Teas] A basic question on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection

Hi Lou,

Thanks much for your comments.

My answer/explanation is inline below.

Best Regards,

Huaimo

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 9:09 AM
To: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection@ietf.org; TEAS WG
Subject: [Teas] A basic question on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection

Hi,

    I have a question on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection that is

prompted by today's interim and can be covered there and/or on list:

Given that the draft says:

>    The egress local protection may be generalized and used with the

>    segment protection defined in RFC 4873 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4873>.  How it is generalized and

>    used is out of scope for this document.

>

Why define a new set of formats and mechanisms when an existing set of

formats and mechanisms can be used or adapted to (a) provide the same

function and (b) do so in a more general way?

[Huaimo] RFC 4873 defines a segment protection, which provides a protection against a failure in a segment of an LSP. However, this segment protection can not be used or re-used to provide a protection against a failure in the egress of the LSP. For a segment from a node B to the egress E of the LSP, node B creates a backup LSP to egress E, and switches the traffic to the backup LSP when detecting a failure in the segment except for a failure in egress E. When egress E fails, the backup LSP will fail, thus no protection is provided by the segment protection against egress failure. To provide egress local (or fast) protection, the segment protection needs to be generalized/enhanced.

I look forward to hearing/discussing the rational for not not reusing

what we already have defined.

Thanks,

Lou

_______________________________________________

Teas mailing list

Teas@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas