Subject: [mpls] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 00:30:02 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : MPLS-TP Linear Protection
	Author(s)       : S. Bryant, et al.
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-03.txt
	Pages           : 31
	Date            : 2010-10-24

The Transport Profile for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP) is
being specified jointly by IETF and ITU-T.  This document addresses
the functionality described in the MPLS-TP Survivability Framework
document [SurvivFwk] and defines a protocol that may be used to
fulfill the function of the Protection State Coordination for linear
protection, as described in that document.

This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as
defined by the ITU-T.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:18:15 +0800

hi, editors
i review this draft today. IMO, i have a question to ask you
in beginning paragraph in the section 4.1, there is a sentence" The PSC 
control packets SHALL be transmitted over the protection path
   only.". so i think if a signal Failure(SF) happened in the protection 
path too. how to transmit PSC control packets between source 
 node and sink node to coordinate state of two nodes.

B.R. 
liu

[email-masked] 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2010-10-24 15:30

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送
[email-masked]
主题
[mpls] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-03.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working 
Group of the IETF.

                 Title           : MPLS-TP Linear Protection
                 Author(s)       : S. Bryant, et al.
                 Filename        : 
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-03.txt
                 Pages           : 31
                 Date            : 2010-10-24

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
ftp://[email-masked]/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-03.txt
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:51:24 -0700

Dear Liu,
my understanding is that if the failure detected on the protection path when
1:1 protection is used, then the working path is no longer protected and PSC
is not applicable until its protected state restored. On the related note, I
think it would be interesting to explore m:n linear protection (1:n case is
mentioned in the document already). If m:n linear protection is in the scope
of the document I'm interested in opinions on:

   - how end-points select which protection path to use for transmission of
   the control packets
   - should control packets that belong to the same working path use the
   same protection path or can traverse different path in each direction

Regards,
Greg

2010/10/25 <[email-masked]>

>  [email-masked]*
> ftp://anonymous@
> ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-03.txt

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:50:38 +0800

Greg
I agree with you. if the failure detected on the protection path. PSC is 
not applicable. so some context of this draft should be changed.
for example, in section 4.3.3.1 ,there is a paragraph of describles" 
       A local Signal Fail indication on the protection path SHALL cause
      the LER to go into Unavailable state and begin transmission of a
      SF(0,0) message to the far-end LER (LER-Z)."
it is impossible to transmit SF(0,0) message to the far-end LER.
so it is necessary to update it in the next version.

2 for m:n(1:n) linear protection, maybe it not include them in this draft?
  or is it  possible to add 1:n(M:N) linear protection for p2p and p2mp
  in the next version?
  i wish the editors of this draft can explain the problem. thank you

B.R.
liu

Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> 
2010-10-25 23:51

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送
[email-masked], [email-masked]
主题
Re: [mpls] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-03.txt

Dear Liu,
my understanding is that if the failure detected on the protection path 
when 1:1 protection is used, then the working path is no longer protected 
and PSC is not applicable until its protected state restored. On the 
related note, I think it would be interesting to explore m:n linear 
protection (1:n case is mentioned in the document already). If m:n linear 
protection is in the scope of the document I'm interested in opinions on:
how end-points select which protection path to use for transmission of the 
control packets
should control packets that belong to the same working path use the same 
protection path or can traverse different path in each direction
Regards,
Greg

hi, editors 

B.R. 
liu

[email-masked] 

收件人
[email-masked] 
抄送
[email-masked] 
主题

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is 
solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is 
confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and 
are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to 
others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of 
the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the 
individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam 
system.

---

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:53:22 +0200

Liu & Greg hi

I agree with Greg's analysis.  But have one note on Liu's observation – consider a case of a unidirectional Signal Fail situation, where the end-point that detects the SF needs to inform the other end-point of the Unavailable state, and the protection path is transmitting in that direction.

[resent to try and get it under the 40kb limit]

BR,

yaacov

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext [email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 07:51
To: Greg Mirsky
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] I-DAction:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-03.txt

Greg 
I agree with you. if the failure detected on the protection path. PSC is not applicable. so some context of this draft should be changed. 

B.R. 
liu 

2010-10-25 23:51 

收件人

[email-masked] 

抄送

主题

 

Dear Liu,
my understanding is that if the failure detected on the protection path when 1:1 protection is used, then the working path is no longer protected and PSC is not applicable until its protected state restored. On the related note, I think it would be interesting to explore m:n linear protection (1:n case is mentioned in the document already). If m:n linear protection is in the scope of the document I'm interested in opinions on: 

*	how end-points select which protection path to use for transmission of the control packets 
*	should control packets that belong to the same working path use the same protection path or can traverse different path in each direction

Regards,
Greg