Re: [Teas] Comparison Analysis (TEAS WG Virtual Interim Meeting (before IETF-95))

Greg, Hi!

Thanks for bringing this up.
Yes, I do expect to hear the OAM aspects of the solution discussed on
Thursday.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com
> wrote:

> Dear Pavan, Huiamo, et. al,
>
> I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that both methods rely on the
> Backup Ingress detecting when the Primary Ingress fails, e.g. slide 13
> “When primary ingress fails, …”. I’m concerned that without clear
> indication that failure occurred at the Primary Ingress and not on the
> link, physical or logical, that connects the Backup and Primary, ingress
> protection is guaranteed to produce false negatives and, in my view, is not
> practical. I’d appreciate if we can discuss OAM aspects of ingress
> protection during our meeting on Thursday.
>
>
>
>                 Regards,
>
>                                 Greg
>
>
>
> *From:* Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Vishnu Pavan
> Beeram
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 24, 2016 2:54 PM
> *To:* Huaimo Chen
> *Cc:* Matt Hartley; teas-chairs@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Comparison Analysis (TEAS WG Virtual Interim
> Meeting (before IETF-95))
>
>
>
> Huaimo,
>
> Much Thanks for putting this slide-set together. It will help drive the
> discussion forward during the interim meeting.
>
> It would be very useful if the comparative analysis covers all of the
> below aspects for both approaches (please see if you can fill in the
> missing pieces in your slide-set):
>
>
>
> - Configuration Model: Discuss the "TE Tunnel" configuration needed for
> requesting "ingress protection". Discuss other prerequisites (if any) for
> configuring this.
>
> - Protection Setup Procedures: Discuss the procedures on all relevant
> nodes ("primary ingress", " backup ingress" [,"proxy ingress"]) for setting
> up the primary LSP and the corresponding backup LSP. A signaling sequence
> diagram would be useful. Discuss the procedures for both "on path backup
> ingress" and "off path backup ingress".
>
> - Session Maintenance Procedures: Discuss the procedures on all relevant
> nodes for maintaining (refreshes, triggers, teardown) primary-LSP state and
> the corresponding backup-LSP state.
>
> - Local Repair Procedures: Discuss the procedures that come into play at
> the "backup ingress" when the "primary ingress" node failure is detected.
>
> - "Revert to Primary Ingress" Procedures
>
> - "Global Repair" Procedures
>
>
>
> - Backwards Compatibility: Discuss "backwards compatibility"
> considerations for the proposed signaling extensions/procedures.
>
> - Scaling Considerations: Discuss "scaling considerations" (amount of
> signaling state/messages to be maintained/processed).
>
>
> - Security Considerations: Discuss "security considerations".
>
> For items in the above list which do not entail any difference in the 2
> approaches, just specify what is common to both.
>
>
>
> ****
>
> Others in the WG,
>
> If you disagree with any of the points made in the slide-set shared by
> Huaimo, please plan on presenting your arguments.
>
> ****
> Please do plan on sending your slides to the chairs and the secretary
> (Matt on cc) by Wednesday.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Pavan
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Chairs,
>
>
>
>     Thanks for organizing the interim meeting.
>
>
>
>     Lou asked for technical trade-off discussion of the current options in
> the I-D, these are:
>
>
>
>         (1) Relay-Message Method
>
>
>
>         (2) Proxy-Ingress Method
>
>
>
> I conducted analysis and documented my results, these can be seen at:
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/HuaimoChen/analysis-2methods
>
> The findings include an example of both techniques. Looking forward to the
> interim call.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Huaimo
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org <teas-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 05, 2016 9:33 PM
> *To:* teas@ietf.org; teas-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Teas] TEAS WG Virtual Interim Meeting (before IETF-95)
>
>
>
> Folks, Hi!
>
>
>
> Happy New Year!!
>
>
>
> We’d like the TEAS WG to hold a virtual interim meeting before IETF-95 to
> cover the following topic -
>
>
>
> "RSVP Ingress Protection / Egress Protection” -- target meeting the week
>
> of 25 January 2015 (with a second meeting possible if needed):
>
> The main purpose of the meeting is to help select one of the two
> alternatives contained in <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection>. A
> secondary purpose is to facilitate further discussion on
> <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection>, and gauge WG consensus on both
> drafts.
>
>
>
> The following doodle poll will aid in selecting the exact date/time for
> this meeting: http://doodle.com/poll/7g4st77huxv66z2d
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Pavan and Lou.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>
>