Jeong-dong,
I don't completely understand your describles.
in former part, you think the protection
locking message is not a reply message ,but is
a originator of request message.
while in your last sentence. the Message
is not originated by a SEN.
so I can't see this locking message
is originator of Locking request message or only a reply
to protection switching Request message
arrived at the SEN？
if it is the former, SEN as MIP of a
path, it can't actively initiate a request messgae.
else if it is only the reply to
protection switching request message. IMO, for the following
example：
A------B------C
D------E------F
\ LPD1 /
\ LPD3 /
\
/ \
/
P-----Q----------R-----S
/
\
/
LPD2 \
/
\
G--------------H---------------J
when a path G-H-J have failure, end node G firstly initiate a protection
switching event message to
SEN node P, R. if SEN node P,R
would relpy to the protection switching event, the Reply message(locking
message) should be sent to the
end nodes G or J of LPD2, can't be sent to the end nodes D,F of LPD3;
my understanding to your opinions
may be wrong?
best regards
liu
| "Ryoo, Jeong-dong"
<ryoo <at> etri.re.kr>
2010-07-30 18:22
请答复 给
"Ryoo, Jeong-dong" <ryoo <at> etri.re.kr> |
|
|
收件人
|
<liu.guoman <at> zte.com.cn>, "Taesik
Cheung" <cts <at> etri.re.kr>
|
|
抄送
|
<mpls <at> ietf.org>, <mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org>,
<mpls-tp <at> ietf.org>
|
|
主题
|
RE: Re: [mpls] a question about draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-01 |
|
Liu,
What you described in your email is aligned
with the operations stated in the MPLS-TP mesh protection draft.
The protection locking message is not exactly
a reply message, which goes to the originator of the request message.
It is certainly destined to other nodes,
which share the common facility,
This is an additional function of SEN to
provide the shared mesh protection.
What I would like to emphasize is that this
message is not originated by a SEN (a MIP of the path for linear protection)
if there is no protection switching event message arrived at the SEN,
Best regards,
Jeong-dong
==============================================
Jeong-dong Ryoo, Ph.D.
Principal Member of Research Staff
Network Research Department
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)
Phone: +82-42-860-5384, Fax: +82-42-860-6342
Email:
ryoo <at> etri.re.kr
==============================================
-----Original Message-----
From: "liu.guoman <at> zte.com.cn" <liu.guoman <at> zte.com.cn>
From Date: 2010-07-30 PM 6:21:08
To: "Taesik Cheung" <cts <at> etri.re.kr>
Cc: "mpls <at> ietf.org" <mpls <at> ietf.org>, "mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org"
<mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org>, "mpls-tp <at> ietf.org" <mpls-tp <at> ietf.org>,
"ryoo <at> etri.re.kr" <ryoo <at> etri.re.kr>
Subject: Re: [mpls] a question about draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-01
Taesik
thank you for replying .but I don't agree your opinions
According to your describles in the draft. I
think the protection locking message isn't a response to the protection
state change notification message sent from a MEP.
and it is activley generate a Locking Request message for the SEN node.
for example. the following figure :
A------B------C D------E------F
\ LPD1 /
\ LPD3 /
\
/ \
/
P-----Q----------R-----S
/
\
/
LPD2 \
/
\
G--------------H---------------J
a. Node G detects the failure, and initiates the linear protection
switching for the failed working path G-H-J;
b. At the same time, node G generates the protection switching
event
message saying that a protection switching event happened
to node
P and R, which are SENs for J->H->G.
c. The SEN P compares the protection switching priority of LPD2
with
that of LPD1. In this example, as the priority of
LPD1 is higher
than LPD2, SEN P does not take an action to node A.
The SEN R compares the protection switching priority
of LPD2 with
that of LPD3. In this example, as the priority of
LPD3 is lower
than LPD2, SEN R sends the protection locking message
requesting
LoP to node D.(if
the Locking message is a response to the protection
state change , I think the Locking message should
send to Node G ,
not node D. because
at the time there is no protection state change for LPD2 .
Node D can't send any state change request to SEN node R
firstly.
do you think so? )
d. Node D takes the protection locking message as an input to the
linear protection switching, and follows the linear
protection
switching procedure to process the end-to-end LoP
command
maybe my understanding be wrong?
best regards
liu
"Taesik Cheung"
<cts <at> etri.re.kr>
?件人: mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org
2010-07-30 16:45
?答? ?
Taesik Cheung <cts <at> etri.re.kr> |
|
|
收件人
|
<liu.guoman <at> zte.com.cn>,
<ryoo <at> etri.re.kr>
|
|
抄送
|
mpls <at> ietf.org, mpls-tp <at> ietf.org
|
|
主?
|
Re: [mpls] a question about draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-01 |
|
Hi Liu,
Thank you for the comments.
Please see in-line.
Regards,
Taesik
-----Original Message-----
From: "liu.guoman <at> zte.com.cn" <liu.guoman <at> zte.com.cn>
From Date: 2010-07-30 PM 5:06:30
To: "ryoo <at> etri.re.kr" <ryoo <at> etri.re.kr>, "cts <at> etri.re.kr"
<cts <at> etri.re.kr>
Cc: "mpls <at> ietf.org" <mpls <at> ietf.org>, "mpls-tp <at> ietf.org"
<mpls-tp <at> ietf.org>
Subject: a question about draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-01
hi,
today I reviewed your this draft, I have a few questions for mesh protection
1 in section 3, In my mind, there is a sentence : In
both cases, 1:1 or 1+1 protection may be used.
if there use 1+1 protection
for each working path. it is no necessary to apply mesh protection.
beacause the bandwidth resource of protection is equal to the sum
of bandwidth resource of all
protected path. so I think 1+1 protection should not be used in
the mesh protection.
do you think so?
[Taesik] Yes, if 1+1 protection is used, shared mesh protection is not
necessary. The sentence is just generic one. Right after the sentence,
we described that if 1:1 protection is used, the segment PQR can be shared
by two protection paths.
2 about the Shared node SEN will send the protection locking message requesting
LoP to the end node of protected LSP. IMO, as SEN node is
MIP of the protected
LSP , it can't generate unsolicit OAM packet to send other
node. so how to generate
the protection locking message requesting LOP in the SEN node ?
[Taesik] The protection locking message is a response to the protection
state change notification message sent from a MEP. It is similar to LTM/LTR
or Lock Intruct / Lock Report relationship.
Maybe i miss something important?
thank you
best regards
liu
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail
is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication
is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy
and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to
others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of
the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail
is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication
is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy
and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to
others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of
the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
For load balance to work with stack limited, then all midpoints would
need to know what ELI was being used.
This is a bit like each P2MP needing to know which ELI is needed
downstream of it, but not quite as bad.
OTOH, putting the ELI that is being used on a P2P LSP in the PATH or
RESV message for that P2P LSP would solve this for "Use of Multipath
with MPLS-TP and MPLS" aka draft-villamizar-mpls-tp-multipath-00. I
could reference draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label and make the request
that you put the ELI label in the PATH or RESV message somewhere.
> On a separate note, we intend to update
> draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label shortly to cover P2MP LSP's (RSVP &
> mLDP), plus add details surrounding labelled BGP and RSVP P2P LSP's so
> that we have a more thorough treatment of all use cases to hopefully
> make all of this more clear. (In fact, I got a good start on this
> text on this on the plane ride home 
RSS Feed