Subject: [mpls-tp] the discussion on ring protection in Dublin

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:55 +0200

All,

we had a meeting in Dublin that was attended by members and of the MEAD
team and service providers.

Nurit captured note from the meeting (see below).

The possibly most important discussion in that meeting was on
MPLS ring protection. We asked the service providers whether ring 
protection were needed in MPLS-TP or not. Of the service providers
present at the meeting there were no one that required that
ring protection is included in MPLS-TP.

We also agreed some time for those service providers that did not
attend the meeting to voice their opinions. This mail is to invite
such opinions.

The decision whether ring protection is in or out will be taken in
early September.

/Loa

-------------------  notes from the meeting  -------------------------
Hi,

My quick take off from the meeting:

1.    There is a requirement for bi-directional LSPs.

a.    It is required that they are co-routed (for simple operation).

b.    We should not preclude non co-routed LSPs (as unidirectional fault
in 1+1 unidirectional protection switching (in case of bi-directional
LSPs) will result in non co-routed LSPs.

2.    uni-directional LSPs should not be precluded (although it was
stated that in many cases bi-directional LSP is set even for real
uni-directional traffic).

3.    50ms is requested basically for the migration from legacy/SDH
networks. This is the value customers are used to and will request for
(pre-condition to move from SDH to packet based networks).

4.    It was indicated that in physical rings it is required to apply
linear protection.

a.    Still we need to re-visit it as I am unsure that we can provide
protection for P2MP LSPs in physical ring topologies using linear
protection.

b.    It was decided to send a 'head up' to the list that since there
was no requirement for a dedicated mechanism for ring protection we
consider to drop the requirement. Italo asked to wait with the decision
until September and it was agreed to wait.

5.    It was indicated that revertive is required and that it serves
better than re-optimization.

I would like to thank the SPs for participating in the meeting.

It is extremely important to have a close dialogue. We need to
understand better the requirements in order to provide the best
solution.

Best regards,

Nurit

-- 
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  [email-masked]
                                            [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp