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

Hi Huiamo,
I don’t agree that the draft describes any OAM method that provides reliable mechanism to detect exclusively Primary Ingress node failure within sub-50 ms interval. I hope we can discuss this at the meeting.

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: Huaimo Chen [mailto:huaimo.chen@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 11:45 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Cc: Matt Hartley; teas-chairs@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Teas] Comparison Analysis (TEAS WG Virtual Interim Meeting (before IETF-95))

Hi Greg,

It seems that the draft contains the description about the primary ingress failure detection by the backup ingress. I may add this into slide 13.

Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 2:20 PM
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Huaimo Chen
Cc: Matt Hartley; teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Teas] Comparison Analysis (TEAS WG Virtual Interim Meeting (before IETF-95))

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<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>; teas@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 9:33 PM
To: teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>; teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas