The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Nov> msg00055



[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: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:26:17 -0500
  • Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/sjdkim8002 verified; );
  • Cc: mpls@ietf.org
  • DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1851; t=1163171502;x=1164035502; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=sjdkim8002;h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com;z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com>|Subject:=20Re=3A=20[mpls]=20RE=3A=20Comments=20on=20draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt |Sender:=20;bh=9HELjCuY5d71NCKG4qLlU1q6VElKzOGFEUyvtTZWTi0=;b=LBFCOfhTIZOLLlbEj8Jc5sd9FD2E0vHYvOzMCi3wp0x/7J1/OhNlfpvyz3HhnhaY42ln2FiL/XbbYiAxAi5B30tb3tytoZgxaFYCwjHI2SuJ4QPEp6mKoRk5J5/EfyqB;
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,410,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="342434229:sNHT66444616"
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2006 15:11:38.0889 (UTC)FILETIME=[85491790:01C704DA]


On Nov 8, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> 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.
>

feeling better ;-)

>> Node P undoubtedly requires more backup tunnels compared to link  
>> protection.
>
> That's all I said.  Thanks for agreeing.

I agreed that Node P requires more backup, not to a point that we may  
have scalability issues.

> Now can we get to the real point?
>

Having this debate is just fine. Just one last thing ... if there's  
no issue, why not continue developing protocols supporting node P then ?

>>> 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.
>

Opinions/Feedback are indeed most welcome here.

Cheers,

JP.

> Kireeti.
> -------

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