The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Nov> msg00034



[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: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 16:00:59 -0500
  • Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4.cisco.com; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com;dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
  • Cc: mpls@ietf.org
  • DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1619; t=1163019659; x=1163883659;c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002;h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com;z=From:JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com>|Subject:Re=3A=20[mpls]=20RE=3A=20Comments=20on=20draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt;X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DXy8hF3t5LAEWceP9SVR0K/qjgZs=3D;b=RMWpPa8KcNxgP9U4QLqgxNqtZZTjvH4RMRHtV/Iy20LTU0PP2L0jya6fwpUKnQeZUfS066kJJ0Bq7kjF2qB3mSgC6zQUO2J0I5rGHwjcLqfJOV7yAdaFbaRVEa22Arhw;
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,401,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="449138639:sNHT53070534"
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2006 21:00:59.0045 (UTC)FILETIME=[FDAF9550:01C70378]

Hi Kireeti,

thoughts in line

On Nov 8, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> 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.
>

Ah well, starting some discussion on a definition of "scalability"  
may quickly become a cumbersome task. Node P undoubtedly requires  
more backup tunnels compared to link protection. Up to a point where  
the number of backup tunnels becomes unreasonable ? Looking a typical  
degree of connectivity, it does not look unreasonable especially with  
Bypass compared to the overall number of primary TE LSPs in most meshes.

> 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.
>

Probability of failures is one dimension, the impact in term of  
traffic disruption is another key dimension to take into account.  
Routers may rarely fail compared to links but the impact of such  
failures is usually considerably larger.

JP.

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

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