Subject: RE: [bmwg] New Version of Protection Benchmarking (terminology/Methodology)

From: "Arun Gandhi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:45:16 -0500

Dear Authors,

This is a neat work. However, I do have some
comments/suggestions/clarifications on the first reviewed draft. 

1) Draft- BMWG Protection Terminology

a) Section 1 (Introduction): Such technologies include High Availability

  (HA) stateful failover. Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)

                    ^^^^^ 
Arun> this looks like a typo. Need comma between the two.

b) Section 1 (Introduction) last paragraph (first 5-6 lines):

   Arun> IMHO, we should add the definition of primary & backup paths as

   Arun> done nicely for the others key items.

   Arun> Here's my suggestion for first couple lines.

   Arun> Protection Switching consists of a minimum of two Protection-

   Arun> Switching Nodes with a Primary Path and a Backup Path. A primary

   Arun> path may be defined as a path that is currently being used to

   Arun> forward traffic while a Backup Path may be defined as a path

   Arun> that is a standby for the primary path and has the same or

   Arun> different resource constraints such as, bandwidth, latency (see

   Arun> Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.6). A Failover Event occurs along the 

   Arun> Primary Path. 

c) Section 3.1.1:

   Arun> appears twice in the document that needs to be corrected (likely

   Arun> an oversight).

d) Under section 3.1.1 (Path) -> "See Also": 

   Arun> [please correct my understanding] the topics provided doesn't 

   Arun> seem to have any relevance here.

e) Section 3.2.1: Definition of "Protection Switching System":
 
   > Definition: 
   > A SUT that is capable of Failover from a Primary to a Backup Path.
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     

   Arun> in my understanding, this should be "capable of switchover" and

   Arun> not "Failover". But reading the draft in entirety this seems apt

   Arun> unless there are other suggestions.

f) Section 3.2.4 -> Discussion (last line):

> A Backup Path providing Path Protection MUST have the same ingress
> node as the Primary Path. 

   Arun> should not the backup path have the same ingress AND the egress

   Arun> nodes as the primary path?

g) Section 3.3: 

   Arun> Failover Time, Failure Recovery, and Reversion Time should also

   Arun> be defined under this Section 3.3 (Failure).

h) Section 3.3.4: 

   Arun> please complete acronym FRR (for completeness).

i) Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2:

   Arun> Definitions for 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 are ditto. The authors might want

   Arun> to reword to show the distinction between the two.

Lastly, IMHO, "Failover" in the draft must be replaced with "Switchover" as
it is also consistent with the MPLS terminology of PSL (Path Switching LSR)
and PML (Path Merge LSR). 

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Arun Gandhi.

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg