Subject: [Mter] Need to decide on potential next steps for MTER

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:09:02 -0400

Hi,

Below the email we sent to the list some time ago, seeking for feed- 
backs but so far the list has been pretty quiet. During the past few  
months we received a very few off-line positive feed-backs indicating  
some interest in this work. It is now a good time to decide on  
whether there is enough interest to work on this topic by the IETF  
community in which case we will request a BOF approval or whether the  
interest is too weak to pursue this work.

So we will follow up with a few discussion threads related to the  
scenarios described in the problem statement ID, for which we'd like  
to get your feed-back relatively quickly, should you think that it is  
worth being pursed.

Thanks.

JP, Jean-Louis and Raymond.

Hi,

It took a little while to come up with a clear problem statement but  
we now have an I-D (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ahmad-  
mter-problem-statement-00.txt (thanks to the authors)) that will  
hopefully trigger some discussion with the objective to see whether  
there is enough interest to pursue this work at the IETF.

The draft has been structured so as to first show three scenarios  
where various recovery mechanisms could be used in combination. This  
does not aim to cover all possible cases but some pretty common  
deployment scenario for the sake of illustration. Then various Multi-  
TEchnology Recovery (MTER) issues are discussed.

What is the objective of this work ?

Let's start with the set of non-objective first ...
* There is no intention to come up with protocols extensions that are  
being worked out in existing WGs (ISIS, IDR, CCAMP, ....)
* Discuss implementation-specific issues

Now the objectives ...

What has been shown through the three MTER deployment cases making  
use of multiple recovery mechanisms in combination is the following:

-> There are cases where being able to identify the root failure  
cause would significantly improve various recovery metrics such as  
the convergence time, required backup capacity, ... and so on. Do we  
need to work on such mechanisms at the IETF is an open question ?

-> MIBs and OAM tools have been defined for most of the recovery  
techniques (IGP, BGP, MPLS FRR, GMPLS, ... ) and there are clearly no  
such tool for the aspects related to their combined use. It looks  
like the availability of such tools would help Service Providers to  
manage, tune and troubleshooting their network. Again, feed-backs  
from this ML are critical to see how to move forward and if the  
community expressed some interest.

Thanks for your feed-backs.

JP, Jean-Louis and Raymond.

_______________________________________________
MTER mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:41:06 -0400

Hi,

With regards to scenario 1 of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ 
draft-ahmad-mter-problem-statement-00.txt

Do you think that:

(1) There is a need for more than simple hold-off timer (e.g. inter- 
layer token-based synchronization process) ? Note that this answer  
may be "Yes, but no need for standardization, implementation specific)
(2) Requirement for identification failure mechanisms so as to  
trigger the appropriate mechanism?
(3) Is there a need for a MIB that would keep track of the number of  
times each mechanism
      has triggered a recovery action and the reasons for each  
activation?
(4) ...

Thanks.

JP, Raymond and Jean-Louis.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
> Date: May 15, 2006 1:09:02 PM EDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mter] Need to decide on potential next steps for MTER
>
> Hi,
>
> backs but so far the list has been pretty quiet. During the past  
> few months we received a very few off-line positive feed-backs  
> indicating some interest in this work. It is now a good time to  
> decide on whether there is enough interest to work on this topic by  
> the IETF community in which case we will request a BOF approval or  
> whether the interest is too weak to pursue this work.
>
> scenarios described in the problem statement ID, for which we'd  
> like to get your feed-back relatively quickly, should you think  
> that it is worth being pursed.
>
> Thanks.
>
> It took a little while to come up with a clear problem statement  
> but we now have an I-D (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft- 
> ahmad- mter-problem-statement-00.txt (thanks to the authors)) that  
> will hopefully trigger some discussion with the objective to see  
> whether there is enough interest to pursue this work at the IETF.
>
> where various recovery mechanisms could be used in combination.  
> This does not aim to cover all possible cases but some pretty  
> common deployment scenario for the sake of illustration. Then  
> various Multi- TEchnology Recovery (MTER) issues are discussed.
>
> * There is no intention to come up with protocols extensions that  
> are being worked out in existing WGs (ISIS, IDR, CCAMP, ....)
> the convergence time, required backup capacity, ... and so on. Do  
> we need to work on such mechanisms at the IETF is an open question ?
>
> techniques (IGP, BGP, MPLS FRR, GMPLS, ... ) and there are clearly  
> no such tool for the aspects related to their combined use. It  
> looks like the availability of such tools would help Service  
> Providers to manage, tune and troubleshooting their network. Again,  
> feed-backs from this ML are critical to see how to move forward and  
> if the community expressed some interest.
>

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:12:08 +0200

Dear JP, Jean-Louis, and Raymond,

we are working on the field of multi-layer resilience, in particular 
regarding the required backup capacity of protection and restoration 
mechanisms, e.g. MPLS-FRR and others:
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/Menth04c.pdf
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/Menth05f.pdf
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/Menth06f.pdf

We, as a university, are interested in the mter discussion to share our 
experience and to find new relevant issues for further research. I hope 
that sufficiently many manufacturers and operators also express their 
interest in this activity.

Kind regards,

    Michael

JP Vasseur wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Below the email we sent to the list some time ago, seeking for 
> feed-backs but so far the list has been pretty quiet. During the past 
> indicating some interest in this work. It is now a good time to decide 
> on whether there is enough interest to work on this topic by the IETF 
> What has been shown through the three MTER deployment cases making use 
> of multiple recovery mechanisms in combination is the following:
>
> -> There are cases where being able to identify the root failure cause 
> would significantly improve various recovery metrics such as the 
> convergence time, required backup capacity, ... and so on. Do we need 
> to work on such mechanisms at the IETF is an open question ?
>
> such tool for the aspects related to their combined use. It looks like 
> the availability of such tools would help Service Providers to manage, 
> tune and troubleshooting their network. Again, feed-backs from this ML 
> are critical to see how to move forward and if the community expressed 
> some interest.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/888-6644, fax: (+49)-931/888-6632
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:26:24 -0400

Hi Michael,

Do you see any particular items in your work that would require  
standardization (protocol, MIBs, ...) ?

JP.

On May 16, 2006, at 3:12 AM, Michael Menth wrote:

> we are working on the field of multi-layer resilience, in  
> particular regarding the required backup capacity of protection and  
> restoration mechanisms, e.g. MPLS-FRR and others:
> We, as a university, are interested in the mter discussion to share  
> our experience and to find new relevant issues for further  
> research. I hope that sufficiently many manufacturers and operators  
> also express their interest in this activity.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>    Michael
>
> JP Vasseur wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> feed-backs but so far the list has been pretty quiet. During the  
>> past few months we received a very few off-line positive feed- 
>> backs indicating some interest in this work. It is now a good time  
>> to decide on whether there is enough interest to work on this  
>> topic by the IETF community in which case we will request a BOF  
>> approval or whether the interest is too weak to pursue this work.
>>
>> Providers to manage, tune and troubleshooting their network.  
>> Again, feed-backs from this ML are critical to see how to move  
>> forward and if the community expressed some interest.
>>