Subject: [mpls] Request WG input on a Mesh Protection Question

From: "Taesik Cheung" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:42:03 +0900

Dear MPLS WG,

As you may have recently noticed, we recently posted an updated version draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-04.

The authors of the solution would like to hear the WG opinion for a specific question.

Should the Mesh Protection solution be built on the existing Linear Protection solution?

Thank you.

Regards,

Taesik

---

From: Pablo Frank <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:26:36 -0500

Hi Taesik,

I suppose it depends on what you mean by your question.  Your current
version of the draft already relies on the PSC as a kind of slave protocol
to a new mesh-protection protocol that coordinates their activities.  In a
sense, your proposal is already built on the existing linear protection
solution.

Are you asking the WG to endorse this idea or do you have something else in
mind?  One possibility is that you mean to enhance the existing PSC
protocol to include features that you need for mesh protection (perhaps a
lockout mechanism or shared-mesh-protection-group IDs, etc).  I think this
is a worthy effort but I can see how it would be difficult.

What did the authors have in mind when asking this question?

regards,
Pablo

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Taesik Cheung <[email-masked]> wrote:

> **** **
> ** **
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>