The MPLS WG Archive

["David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: Comments on draft-makam-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-00

Srinivas:

I think the objectives of the framework needs a few tweaks:

Goals:
       
        Goal 'VII' probably should read, "the recovery actions of lower layers".

        Goal 'X' really appears to be a subset of goal 'XII'. The latency discussed in 'X' is only a subnet of the overall constraints and performance characteristics

        outlined in 'XII'. Suggest deleting 'X'.

        An implied goal is that MPLS based protection of traffic should minimize the number of single points of failure in the MPLS protected domain. It should be

        explicitly brought out.

        Sometimes but not always, true "black box" behavior of MPLS protection will be required. The egress point of a protected  LSP tunnel may need to be pinned

        to a specific LSR.  For some traffic types this requirement can be relaxed.

In 2.1.2 I'd like to suggest that a protection path may be "pre-established", or "pre-qualified". If protection switch merely means a PSL receiving notification of a failure on a specific LSP and switching traffic to a different LSP which also ultimately gets the packets to the same place, I really don't care how the alternate LSP came into being. "pre-established" suggests that it was specifically created for the purpose and that may not be the case.

Cheers
Dave