The MPLS WG Archive

["Greg Mirsky" <gmirsky@turinnetworks.com>]

Dear Zafar,
though section 4.6 in RFC 4461 says that for P2MP TE LSP "... solutions
MUST provide fast protection mechanisms similar to those specified in
[RFC4090] ..." I can not find that any specific protection mode,
facility backup in node protection mode in particular, being explicitly
required. Would you agree to statement that an implementation that
supports subset of protection mechanisms defined in RFC 4090 for the
P2MP TE LSP does not violate quoted above requirement?

Regards,
Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 12:53 PM
To: Kireeti Kompella; 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

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 1:21 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
> 
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN wrote:
> 
> > Hi Kireeti,
> >
> > Please see in-line
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> > The approach sounds actually a bit surprising to me: The 
> IETF worked 
> > on P2P FRR node protection, it has been implemented, 
> deployed, SPs are 
> > happy with this feature. And now you want to step back as P2MP node 
> > protection may be a bit more complex...
> 
> Well, I had the same opinion for p2p; in retrospect, I wish I 
> had raised the point then.  P2MP just makes this a bit more complex.
> 
> But, to repeat, I'm not against node protection.  I just want 
> validation from SPs that the additional complexity etc. of 
> node protection is required.  You said yes; Mazen said no.  
> Others have yet to speak.  

Really, and we closed the P2MP RSVP-TE requirement document and moved it
to an RFC status without hearing SP-es! 

The requirement document for P2MP LSP
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4461.txt?number=4461) states node protection
as a requirement. You can play with the wording in the RFC but it does
state the requirement for supporting options in RFC 4090. 

IMO bandwidth inefficiency of P2P backup tunnels for node protection for
P2MP LSP-es is a major limitation. In this respect, I am in favor of
this document. 

Thanks

Regards... Zafar 

> If SPs were to themselves step 
> back and reconsider how they really want to protect nodes, 
> that would be a bonus.
> 
> Finally, this is not a call for consensus, just a request for 
> information.  Whether or not we work on this depends on the 
> WG chairs, which I am not :-)
> 
> 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

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