Subject: [mpls] Seamless MPLS Draft updated

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:22:59 +0100

Dear WG Members,

We just published the -01 version of the "Seamless MPLS" draft 
(draft-leymann-mpls-seamless-mpls-01, abstract below) and would 
like to get feedback from the WG. The draft will be presented 
during the next IETF in Anaheim.

Abstract:
  "This documents describes an architecture which can be used to extend
   MPLS networks to integrate access and aggregation networks into a
   single MPLS domain ("Seamless MPLS").  The Seamless MPLS approach is
   based on existing and well known protocols.  It provides a highly
   flexible and a scalable architecture and the possibility to integrate
   100.000 of nodes.  The separation of the service and transport plane
   is one of the key elements; Seamless MPLS provides end to end service
   independent transport.  Therefore it removes the need for service
   specific configurations in network transport nodes (without end to
   end transport MPLS, some additional services nodes/configurations
   would be required to glue each transport domain.  This draft defines
   a routing architecture using existing standardized protocols.  It
   does not invent any new protocols or defines extensions to existing
   protocols."
 
  regards

     Nic

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:25:17 +0100

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leymann-mpls-seamless-mpls/ 

  Nic

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Leymann, Nicolai
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. März 2010 10:23
An: [email-masked]
Cc: Wenner, Roger; Beckhaus, Thomas
Betreff: [mpls] Seamless MPLS Draft updated

Dear WG Members,

Abstract:
 
  regards

     Nic

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

---

From: saumya dikshit <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:47:23 +0530

Hi

Please find my initial comments on this draft  specific to section 3.3:

1. In-service upgradeability requirement for CP and DP elements for
brownfield deployments should be a   must for achieving 5 nine's. I feel
needs an explicit mention

2. In case of Node level redundancy provision, the empirical data may double
up.

3. The requirement for having a hot standby may not be a particular
requisite in case CP elements are of restartable nature without affecting
the data flow.

Thanks and Regards
Saumya