Subject: [mpls-tp] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-00

From: "Amir Halperin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:01:25 +0200

Hi Yaacov.

Few comments on the draft:

1. Detailed PSC state machine is not specified. Is it on purpose? Why
not reusing G.8031 state machine?

2. Existence of working and recovery LSPs is not considered as part of
the PSC logic e.g. only working/recovery LSP exist on tunnel, operator
delete working/recovery LSP from the tunnel during runtime.

3. Is make before break shall be supported on linear protected tunnels?
If it should be supported, then how it affects the PSC logic e.g. more
then one working/recovery LSPs in tunnel?

4. In addition to question #3, is it OK to maintain working LSP using
the recovery LSP in the tunnel i.e. protection is not available during
maintenance time (like in SONET/SDH)? If this limitation is OK, then MBB
is not required.

5. What about other lower layer protection mechanisms e.g. FRR? How they
affect PSC logic? Do we need to consider adding a hold-off timeout for
handling these cases?

Regards

Amir Halperin

[email-masked]