The MPLS WG Archive[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
Hi Jean-Louis, I agree with Kireeti that node protection is several degrees more complex, definitely in the case of P2MP LSPs. However, I am not so sure of the efficiency of even link protection for P2MP LSP traffic. The bypass tunnel for a protected link may be established over another link or set of links behind which there are leaves of the P2MP LSP. So when the protected link fails, there would be two copies of the traffic forwarded over such links. Isn't that also a concern very similar to what you are trying to solve in this draft for node protection? Regards, -Venu > -----Original Message----- > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 11:56 AM > To: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN > Cc: mpls@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [mpls] RE: Comments on > draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt > > 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 > _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|