The MPLS WG Archive

[Ian Stanley <ian.b.stanley@team.telstra.com>]

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

All,

We at Telstra have the same arrangements as Cox in terms of redundancy for our nodes and have not experienced a node failure as yet

Cheers
Ian


On 10/11/06 3:48 AM, "Mazen.Khaddam@cox.com" <Mazen.Khaddam@cox.com> wrote:Mazen.Khaddam@cox.com

> Here at Cox, our BB is fully meshed with of TE LSPs between our
> core-edge routers with link protection. Based on our history, we have
> not seen a node failure yet.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:56 PM
> 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


 
Regards,
Ian Stanley
National Manager
Architecture & Design
IP & Data
Core Networks | Engineering
02 9396 8508
0419 257221



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