Subject: [mpls-tp] Query regarding draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01

From: Mukund Mani <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:53:09 +0530

Hi Yaacov

Have a small question w.r.t draft "*draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01".
*

Wanted to know if this draft applies for Pseudowires as well.. Will the same
PSC mechanism be used for PseudoWire protection switching also...?

There are some drafts eg"draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-03" in the PWE3 group
which talk about PW protection.
**
Quoting the Survivability Framewrok which specifies the following:

   Pseudowires provide end-to-end connectivity over the MPLS-TP network
   and may comprise a single pseudowire segment, or multiple segments
   "stitched" together to provide end-to-end connectivity.

   The pseudowire may, itself, require a level of protection, in order
   to meet the service-level guarantees of its SLA.  This protection
   could be provided by the MPLS-TP LSPs that support the pseudowire, or
   could be a feature of the pseudowire layer itself.

   As indicated above, the functional architecture described in this
   document applies to both LSPs and pseudowires.  *However, the recovery
   mechanisms for pseudowires are for further study and will be defined
   in a separate document by the PWE3 working group.
*

Aside from this generally we talk about PW's as bidirectional.. Would 1:1
unidirectional protection switching be applicable for PW as well?
**
Looking forward for your reply...

Thanks

With Regards
Mukund

---

From: Mukund Mani <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:14:55 +0530

Hi

Small correction.. with reference to the mail below..
Actually meant if 1+1 uni-directional protection switching is applicable for
PW..?

With Regards
Mukund

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Mukund Mani <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Wanted to know if this draft applies for Pseudowires as well.. Will the
> same PSC mechanism be used for PseudoWire protection switching also...?
>

---

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:45:21 +0200

Hi,

The intent of the draft is to address LSP's only.  There are additional
considerations for PW protection that are out-of scope of this draft and
will probably be addressed in some future draft down-the-line.

Regarding 1+1 unidirectional protection - your observation may be
correct but would need to be considered as part of the more general
topic.

BR,

yaacov

________________________________

From: ext Mukund Mani [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:45
To: Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Query regarding draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01

Hi

Actually meant if 1+1 uni-directional protection switching is applicable
for PW..?

With Regards

Mukund

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Mukund Mani <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Hi Yaacov

Have a small question w.r.t draft
"draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01". 

There are some drafts eg"draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-03" in the PWE3
group which talk about PW protection.

   As indicated above, the functional architecture described in this
   document applies to both LSPs and pseudowires.  However, the recovery
   mechanisms for pseudowires are for further study and will be defined
   in a separate document by the PWE3 working group.

Aside from this generally we talk about PW's as bidirectional.. Would
1:1 unidirectional protection switching be applicable for PW as well?

Thanks

With Regards

Mukund