Subject: RE: draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

From: David McDysan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:11:28 -0500

Richard,

 Depending upon the use case (intra versus interprovider) and the
availability/acceptability of using PSN tunnels, protection scaling could be
addressed by interconnecting S-PEs in a richer mesh to reduce the amount of
signaling seen by intermediate nodes.

I suggest that a useful addition to the MS-PW requirements wg draft would be
to state numerical values for the use cases, such as has been done in the
messages below.

Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:12 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt
> 
> Chris,
>  
> Regardless of which signalling protocol is used, in order to 
> protect against S-PE failure 1+1 protection will be required 
> for at least a subset of MS-PWs, in a large network this 
> could well be in the order of 1,000's or 10,000's. 
> Unfortunately there is no getting around this.
>  
> Regards,
> Richard
> 
> 	-----Original Message----- 
> 	From: [email-masked] on behalf of Chris Liljenstolpe 
> 	Sent: Wed 23/03/2005 13:18 
> 	To: [email-masked] 
> 	Cc: 
> 	Subject: RE: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 	Hash: SHA1
> 	
> 	At this time, I do not support making this draft a 
> working group item. 
> 	I have yet to see a substantial set of formal 
> requirements and a case
> 	that the existing methods do not meet those requirements.
> 	
> 	Much talk has been raised, such as re-route of PW's, 
> that I think, in
> 	reality, are not relevant. When this work was started, 
> it was commonly
> 	understood that the underlying network would handle traffic
> 	engineering, fault restoration, and the like.  Speaking 
> as a past
> 	operator, I would much prefer having 10's or 100's of traffic
> 	engineering tunnels rerouting in the event of a network 
> event, than
> 	1000's or 10000's of service or PW tunnels doing the 
> same thing,  Let's
> 	leave the separation where it makes sense.  The things 
> that RSVP-TE
> 	excels in belongs in the underlying "transport" of the 
> service, not the
> 	service itself.
> 	
> 	        Chris
> 	-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 	Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
> 	
> 	iQEVAwUBQkGzCWmx2Mt/+Iw/AQIm+Qf8ChlvB2T0GBlwmWqimm3k/GDmXB6sHIBM
> 	nzqa5mELPydLDwINHnAMXHF14Hr3OfZRXBQuOvpeM1Zhg4zjSIUbT8egvgA/bBd3
> 	3gKW2qXx6t10McwnRDgPpNjdxt5BG9dDpB74786zSxjCEUqWi4YkAhFVppMSSVYK
> 	zx4zz9ZexZisc6bir5zRpfHlOg6RPmS2NQm6DAT/DTrwr7Q/WfZhZhgbuU6/d5H4
> 	n02aAbuNz6ebf43NBObP0eJ1szjfldFCASTq9j1UdgEgdCAd2NxkOlnXXOTy5CM3
> 	F0V1SdqBsgeJXYfXecltAT1r2JB6R5eHKdRhkT8H4xCjHfIoAKjZJA==
> 	=46Rf
> 	-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 	
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	pwe3 mailing list
> 	[email-masked]
> 	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 	
> 
>