The MPLS WG Archive

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, JP Vasseur wrote:

> 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.

I have no intention of starting such a discussion.

> Node P undoubtedly requires more backup 
> tunnels compared to link protection.

That's all I said.  Thanks for agreeing.  Now can we get to the real 
point?

>> 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.

The idea is *not* to start a religious war, or to propose some 
solution or other.  The idea is to get a better understanding of 
failures that really happen in networks.

I would agree with you on another point: the impact (and other 
parameters, like duration, cost of recovery, etc.) are all interesting 
factors.  I'll take as much as SPs are willing to share.

Kireeti.
-------

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