Subject: [mpls] Comment on draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01.txt

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:57:25 -0700

Hi Adrian and Nurit,

I would like to see a reference to RFC4090 in section 4.4.3.

Thanks,
rahul

---

From: "BUSI ITALO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:07:43 +0100

I think we need to do more than just adding a reference to RFC4090.

For each mechanism described in this draft (including also FRR), we need
to discuss and describe how it works in the MPLS-TP environment, taking
into consideration MPLS-TP requirements and in particular co-routed
bidirectional transport paths, bidirectional protection switching and
support of operator's commands.

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rahul Aggarwal
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:57 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mpls-interop] Comment on 
> draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01.txt
> 
> 
> Hi Adrian and Nurit,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mpls-interop mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
>

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:20:06 -0000

Yes Rahul,

I understand the need for a reference to 4090 in the document.

I know 4.4.3 seems the obvious place to put this reference, but the 
intention of the whole of section 4 is to describe data plane techniques 
without reference to how they are established or managed. Hence no reference 
to management or control plane.

In section 5, however, we start to reference mechanisms to support the 
techniques described in section 4. Section 5.5 is about the control plane, 
and section 5.5.6 is called "Establishment of Protection and Restoration 
LSPs". I believe it is here that we should place the reference.

Would you like to supply a (short :-) paragraph to go in that section?

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:27:33 -0000

Italo,

> support of operator's commands.

Yes, but...  :-)

I think you are right that section 5 must show how existing mechanisms may 
be used to meet some/all of the MPLS-TP protection requirements. Hopefully 
this will also show if some of the solutions are not applicable to some of 
the requirements.

Note that it is not required that a single mechanism meets all requirements. 
It is necessary that each requirement can be met by at least one mechanism.

Text is welcome!

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Malcolm Betts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:27:59 -0400

Adrian, not sure I like the implication that I must run multiple
mechanisms to meet the requirements of a given deployment scenario.  See
in line below.

Malcolm Betts
Nortel Networks
Phone: +1 613 763 7860 (ESN 393)
email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:28 PM
To: BUSI ITALO; Rahul Aggarwal; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop]
Commentondraft-sprecher-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01.txt

Italo,

> For each mechanism described in this draft (including also FRR), we 
> need to discuss and describe how it works in the MPLS-TP environment, 
> taking into consideration MPLS-TP requirements and in particular 
> co-routed bidirectional transport paths, bidirectional protection 
> switching and support of operator's commands.

Yes, but...  :-)

I think you are right that section 5 must show how existing mechanisms
may be used to meet some/all of the MPLS-TP protection requirements.
Hopefully this will also show if some of the solutions are not
applicable to some of the requirements.

Note that it is not required that a single mechanism meets all
requirements. 
It is necessary that each requirement can be met by at least one
mechanism.

>MB We need to be careful with this IMHO it is preferable to have a
single mechanism to support commonly used sub sets of the requirements. 

Text is welcome!

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:04:04 -0000

> mechanisms to meet the requirements of a given deployment
> scenario.

Hmm?
I think you use lungs and legs when you go for a walk.
Everything is made up of building blocks.

>  See in line below.

Your point is valid that you don't want to be juggling lots of different 
bits and pieces.
Also that pieces that are separate need to be coordinated and compatible.

A