Subject: [mpls] Mis-connectivity defect #4 in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:23:32 -0700

Dear Authors,
I think that question of FRR applicability in MPLS-TP networks was discussed
but I couldn't find if the conclusion was reached.
I think that FRR is applicable to unidirectional p2p and p2mp LSPs and
bi-directional associated LSP if it's monitored, protected in independent
mode. I assume that both FRR methods, one-to-one and facility, are equally
applicable in MPLS-TP networks. Hence my question:
In Section 3.5.2:
Receipt of an expected session discriminator with an unexpected label
(mis-connectivity defect).
but with one-to-one backup FRR, LER being MP, local protection being in use
ingress label will be different from one of protected LSP. In order not to
generate false positive it must be associated with the session
discriminator.
Hence my question:
If my assumptions regarding FRR in MPLS-TP accurate is there a gap in
associating one-to-one backup LSP with CC/CV/RDI session?

Regards,
Greg