Subject: RE: On VPLS and Routing Protocols

From: "Shah, Himanshu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:52:34 -0400

thats exactly what I was thinking (I had mentioned this to Vach 
and cheng-yin at IETF).

But, I think that  'blocking' VPLS port (consisting of PW bundle
of the affected VPLS instance) of A should be adequate If packet 
forwarding capability of A is compromised because PW from A to Z 
is down.

/himanshu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Zinin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:12 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: On VPLS and Routing Protocols
> 
> 
> Monday, July 28, 2003, 4:05:22 PM, Alex Zinin wrote:
> [...]
> >  3. When node A looses the PW to node Z, make sure nodes B..Y
> >     simulate loss of connectivity to A and Z too, so all CEs
> >     have a consistent view and VPN routing converges properly.
> >     I.e. PW failure triggers simulation of 2 node failures.
> 
> IF we decide to go this route, the simplest way to do this is for A
> and Z to logically put all other PWs they have logically down (stop
> sending outgoing and drop incoming traffic on them) when they see a PW
> failure. This way, the two-way connectivity of all other CEs with
> those attached to A and Z will be broken and VPN routing will
> reconverge properly. No extra message exchange, no additional
> signaling--everything is a node-local decision.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Cheng-Yin Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:46:54 -0400

Himanshu,
In all the proposals below, I still think A & Z need to tell (may need
to be explicit to prevent ambiguity) other PEs that it is not
participating in the VPLS anymore.
I am not aware of any solutions that does not require some kind of
protocol among PEs.

Regards
Cheng-Yin

> "Shah, Himanshu" wrote: