The MPLS WG Archive

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

Hi Jean-Louis,
thank you for the clarification. I agree that supporting both protection methods is critical. But the 4090 defines link and node protection for both one-to-one and facility backup. If a solution provides node protection for a detour only would it be compliant with 4461?

Regards,
Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN [mailto:jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:57 PM
To: Greg Mirsky; Zafar Ali (zali); Kireeti Kompella
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] RE: Comments on draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt

Hi Greg,

> 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] ..."

With this statement we (RFC4461 authors) actually mean that both link protection and node protection are required.

You can read this statement differently:
1: RFC4090 defines procedures for link protection and node protection.
2: RFC4461 states that the solution MUST provide mechanisms similar to 4090.

>From 1 and 2 we deduce that the solution MUST provide node protection.

Thanks,

JL




> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Greg Mirsky [mailto:gmirsky@turinnetworks.com] 
> Envoyé : lundi 13 novembre 2006 21:30
> À : Zafar Ali (zali); Kireeti Kompella; LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
> Cc : mpls@ietf.org
> Objet : RE: [mpls] RE: Comments on 
> draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt
> 
> 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