Subject: [mpls-tp] coordination of protection switching in mpls-tp

From: "Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:12:19 +0530

hello all,
When GMPLS RSVP-TE signalled LSPs are used with mpls-tp protection
switching as in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection,can the protection
switching co-ordination( when required) be done as per the protocol
defined in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection or should the co
ordination mechanism defined in GMPLS ( rfc 4872) rsvp-te be used ?

Regards
 Vijay

DISCLAIMER:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. 
It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in 
this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates. 
Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and / or publication of 
this message without the prior written consent of the author of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Before opening any mail and 
attachments please check them for viruses and defect.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 08:11:14 +0200

Vijay, hi

Not sure that I understand the question but the following is a quote
from section 3.1.1 of the linear-protection draft: "If the control plane
is based on GMPLS [RFC3945] then the recovery process SHALL comply with
the process described in [RFC4872]."  Which IMO answers your question.
If I am wrong - please clarify the question.

BR,
yaacov

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of ext Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 09:42
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls-tp] coordination of protection switching in mpls-tp

hello all,

Regards
 Vijay

DISCLAIMER:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and
intended for the named recipient(s) only. 
It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its
affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in 
this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily
reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates. 
Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure,
modification, distribution and / or publication of 
this message without the prior written consent of the author of this
e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender
immediately. Before opening any mail and 
attachments please check them for viruses and defect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

---

From: "Amir Halperin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:32:36 +0200

RFC4872 defines PSC which is based on RSVP-TE, while
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection provides substantive PSC definition
that can be implemented with no RSVP-TE stack at all e.g. for non IP
MPLS-TP devices which implements static LSP and includes inband OAM for
CC and protection purposes only.

Regards,

Amir Halperin
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Vijayanand C - ERS, HCL Tech
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:42 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls-tp] coordination of protection switching in mpls-tp

hello all,

Regards
 Vijay

DISCLAIMER: