The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Nov> msg00033



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[mpls] RE: Comments on draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt

  • From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:55:32 -0800 (PST)
  • Cc: mpls@ietf.org

Hi Jean-Louis,

To re-iterate my comment in the WG, in general, node protection, 
whether for p2p or p2mp LSPs, is an order of magnitude less scalable 
than link protection.

I think we should step back at this point, and request SPs and others 
deploying MPLS networks to share with the WG: frequencies of link 
failures, node software failures (node recovers), node failures 
(requires manual intervention), and battery explosions, to give us a 
sense of the importance of continuing the work on node protection.

I realize that some of these figures may be sensitive, but even 
normalized numbers may be useful.

Kireeti.
-------

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls