Subject: [mpls] Ring Protection in MPLS-TP

From: "Diego Caviglia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:03:12 +0200

Hi all,
         at last IETF the following ID about ring protection has been
presented, the ID is focused on p2mp but the proposed mechanism can be
applied to p2p LSP.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ceccarelli-mpls-tp-p2mp-ring-00

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/74/slides/mpls-20/mpls-20.htm

The ID was also trying to compare different solutions e.g. steering vs
the new proposed one (section 6)

We, as authors, have not received any comments so far.

Now there are two more IDs on ring protection.

I'm wondering, and I'd like to ask this to chairs and community, if it
is the case to try to converge this kind of work in a single document
addressing all the possible requirement for ring.

BR

Diego

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:48:52 +0800

I support.

Jian Yang

"Diego Caviglia" <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2009-07-29 22:03

收件人
<[email-masked]>
抄送
[email-masked]
主题
[mpls] Ring Protection in MPLS-TP

Hi all, 
         at last IETF the following ID about ring protection has been 
presented, the ID is focused on p2mp but the proposed mechanism can be 
applied to p2p LSP.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ceccarelli-mpls-tp-p2mp-ring-00 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/74/slides/mpls-20/mpls-20.htm 
The ID was also trying to compare different solutions e.g. steering vs the 
new proposed one (section 6) 
We, as authors, have not received any comments so far. 
Now there are two more IDs on ring protection. 
I'm wondering, and I'd like to ask this to chairs and community, if it is 
the case to try to converge this kind of work in a single document 
addressing all the possible requirement for ring.
BR 
Diego _______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls