Subject: Re: [PWE3] New Version Notification for draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:20:19 +0800

hi all
I have just upload new version of 
draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection according to all experts' 
comments.
 I will welcome all experts can review this draft and provide more 
comments and advice.

than you very much;

B.R.
liu 

[email-masked] 
2012-12-12 14:14

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送
[email-masked]
主题
New Version Notification for 
draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Guoman Liu and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:                 draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection
Revision:                 02
Title:                            p2mp pw protection for MPLS-TP network
Creation date:            2012-12-12
WG ID:                            Individual Submission
Number of pages: 9
URL:             
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt

Status:          
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection
Htmlized:        
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02
Diff:            
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02

Abstract:
   The requirements of MPLS-TP in RFC 5654 include a requirement(R63)
   that requires MPLS-TP MUST be possible to provide protection for
   MPLS-TP data plane without any IP forwarding capability and control
   plane.If applying 1:1 protection for the p2mp traffic in rfc6718 , it
   must have a return path to coordinate the switch state to select the
   same path to receive and send the traffic packet.As there exists the
   above problem statement,This document describes a kind of protection
   solution to recovery and protect the p2mp traffic under the failure
   condition.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Task Force(IETF) /
   International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as
   defined by the ITU-T.

The IETF Secretariat

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:17:19 -0800

Dear All,
I recall that discussion on whether MPLS-TP Linear Protection, draft then
and RFC 6378 now, should be applicable to PWs was short and ended by
statement that for PW Redundancy is the paradigm for PW protection,
including MPLS-TP, and applicability of PSC to PW is not required. Is my
recollection correct?

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:20 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  [email-masked]*
>
> 2012-12-12 14:14
>   收件人
> [email-masked]
> 抄送
> [email-masked]
> 主题
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:34:21 +0800

Greg
thank you for replying. I think that your recollection is correct. But 
this draft is a special protection solution for p2mp pw without control 
plane and IP forwarding capability.
It can use state message to coordinate between primary node and protector 
node. So it is defferent from pw Redundancy mechanism.

B.R.
liu

Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> 
2012-12-14 09:17

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送
[email-masked]
主题
Re: [PWE3] New Version Notification for 
draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt

Dear All,

Regards,
Greg

hi all 

than you very much; 

B.R. 
liu 

[email-masked] 
2012-12-12 14:14 

收件人
[email-masked] 
抄送
[email-masked] 
主题

Title:                                   p2mp pw protection for MPLS-TP 
network

Status:          

Abstract:

The IETF Secretariat

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail 
(and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential 
and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not 
an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other 
dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. 
If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us 
immediately.

---

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:48:11 +0000

Dear Liu,
I agree that mechanisms applicable to MPLS-TP must operate without relying on control plane. And MPLS-TP Linear Protection complies with this requirement. Would we see LDP-based support of PW redundancy mapped to a G-ACh-based solution?

    Regards,
        Greg

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:34 PM
To: Greg Mirsky
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] New Version Notification for draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt

Greg
thank you for replying. I think that your recollection is correct. But this draft is a special protection solution for p2mp pw without control plane and IP forwarding capability.
It can use state message to coordinate between primary node and protector node. So it is defferent from pw Redundancy mechanism.

B.R.
liu

2012-12-14 09:17

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送
[email-masked]
主题
Re: [PWE3] New Version Notification for draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt

Dear All,
I recall that discussion on whether MPLS-TP Linear Protection, draft then and RFC 6378 now, should be applicable to PWs was short and ended by statement that for PW Redundancy is the paradigm for PW protection, including MPLS-TP, and applicability of PSC to PW is not required. Is my recollection correct?

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:20 PM, <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

hi all
I have just upload new version of draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection according to all experts' comments.
I will welcome all experts can review this draft and provide more comments and advice.

than you very much;

B.R.
liu

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

2012-12-12 14:14

收件人
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
抄送
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
主题
New Version Notification for        draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt

Filename:                  draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection
Revision:                  02
Title:                                   p2mp pw protection for MPLS-TP network
Creation date:                  2012-12-12
WG ID:                                   Individual Submission
Number of pages: 9
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02

Abstract:

The IETF Secretariat

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:45:12 +0800

Dear Greg
Do you remember there is a sentence in section 1.2 scope of the docoment 
of MPLS-TP Linear protection(RFC6378)?
 The use of this protocol for point-to-multipoint paths is out of scope 
for this document and may be
  addressed in a future applicability document.
So MPLS-TP Linear protection is not suitable for protection of p2mp pw.
In addtion, I think PW redundancy mechanism is used for p2p pw. If 
protection for p2mp pw use pw redundancy, It need to configure an backup 
pw for each branch path of p2mp pw.
So that it is very complex to implement pw redundancy mechanism in real 
network. But this draft provides a new protection mechnasim to use one 
branch path to protect the failure on 
another branch path for p2mp pw scenario. So it need less backup pw than 
pw redundancy mechansim.

is my understanding right? thank u

B.R.
Liu

Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]> 
2012-12-14 09:48

收件人
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Greg Mirsky 
<[email-masked]>
抄送
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
主题
RE: [PWE3] New Version Notification for 
draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt

Dear Liu,
I agree that mechanisms applicable to MPLS-TP must operate without relying 
on control plane. And MPLS-TP Linear Protection complies with this 
requirement. Would we see LDP-based support of PW redundancy mapped to a 
G-ACh-based solution?
 
    Regards,
        Greg

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:34 PM
To: Greg Mirsky
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] New Version Notification for 
draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection-02.txt

Greg 

B.R. 
liu

收件人
[email-masked] 
抄送
[email-masked] 
主题

Dear All,

Regards,
Greg

hi all 
I have just upload new version of 
draft-liu-pwe3-mpls-tp-p2mp-pw-protection according to all experts' 
comments. 
I will welcome all experts can review this draft and provide more comments 
and advice. 

than you very much; 

B.R. 
liu 

[email-masked] 
2012-12-12 14:14 

收件人
[email-masked] 
抄送
[email-masked] 
主题

Status:          

Abstract:

The IETF Secretariat