Subject: [mpls-tp] Basic questions on draft-huang-mpls-ring-signaling-extensions

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:37:50 +0100

Hi all,

After hearing your presentation at IETF79, I have some questions about
the intention of this document:
1. In addition to the signaling extensions that appear in the title of
this document, you also seem to be defining ring-protection procedures
based only on wrapping.  Is the intention of this draft to define ring
protection?  Could you explain whether this is different from the
wrapping procedures already defined in the pre-existing I-D that address
ring-protection?

2. Is your draft addressing generic MPLS or MPLS-TP?  The title seems to
be directed at MPLS and not MPLS-TP, or is this my misinterpretation?

3.  In continuation to the previous question - you seem to be describing
methods for unidirectional p2p LSPs, not sure how the signaling
extensions are intended for use with bidirectional LSP and in particular
co-routed bidirectional LSPs as defined for MPLS-TP.

4.  Regarding your protection method using a SPME - is this SPME p2mp or
mp2mp?

Best regards,
 
Yaacov Weingarten
Industry Environment, Packet Transport
Nokia Siemens Networks
Hod Hasharon, Israel 45241
Tel: +972-9-775 1827
Mob: +972-54-220 0977

---

From: "Huang Yong (Oliver)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:33:53 +0800

Hello Yaacov and All,

    Glad to hear from you. I am the author of this draft. My name is Huang
Yong and you can call my English name Oliver.

    You sent a mail to ask several questions and I will answer below.

> wrapping procedures already defined in the pre-existing I-D that 
> addressring-protection?
  [Oliver] Yes, I mentioned in my draft that it only talk on wrapping method
because I believe only wrapping method take ring topology into protection
solution which make it different. Steering protection method is almost the
same with linear protection. I also believe that one operator will not
deploy both methods in one ring in reality.  The basic mechanism of wrapping
is same. But in my draft the working encapsulation is different from
existing I-D for it not using SPME label. 
 
> be directed at MPLS and not MPLS-TP, or is this my misinterpretation?
  [Oliver]  I did not divided MPLS / MPLS-TP so clearly in fact. I have an
understanding that MPLS-TP cares more about 'static'. So I proposed my draft
to MPLS since it is dynamic mechanism. If MPLS-TP also covers dynamic
mechanism, I think this draft can cover both.

> 
> 3.  In continuation to the previous question - you seem to be 
> describingmethods for unidirectional p2p LSPs, not sure how the 
> signalingextensions are intended for use with bidirectional LSP 
> and in particular
  [Oliver]  Bidirectional LSP consists two unidirectional p2p LSPs. I think
this draft in principle can cover it. Well Co-routed bidirectional LSP has
not been considered in this version of draft which need more study. 

> 4.  Regarding your protection method using a SPME - is this SPME 
  [Oliver] My draft does not use SPME. In section 3 point 1, I mentioned
this. Would you clarify this question in case I misunderstood you?

Best Regards,
Oliver

  _____  

From: Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:38 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Basic questions on draft-huang-mpls-ring-signaling-extensions

Hi all,

After hearing your presentation at IETF79, I have some questions about the
intention of this document:

1. In addition to the signaling extensions that appear in the title of this
document, you also seem to be defining ring-protection procedures based only
on wrapping.  Is the intention of this draft to define ring protection?
Could you explain whether this is different from the wrapping procedures
already defined in the pre-existing I-D that address ring-protection?

2. Is your draft addressing generic MPLS or MPLS-TP?  The title seems to be
directed at MPLS and not MPLS-TP, or is this my misinterpretation?

3.  In continuation to the previous question - you seem to be describing
methods for unidirectional p2p LSPs, not sure how the signaling extensions
are intended for use with bidirectional LSP and in particular co-routed
bidirectional LSPs as defined for MPLS-TP.

Best regards,

Yaacov Weingarten

Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +972-9-775 1827

Mob: +972-54-220 0977