[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
LMP: Localizing Fault for Protection/Restoration
Hi all,
Another issue that is addressed in Section 6 "Fault Management" is the
determination of whether a detected defect is due to a fault within a
Protection/Restoration subnetwork or outside the subnetwork. The
following text is included in Section 6.2, "As part of the fault
localization, a downstream node (downstream in terms of data flow) that
detects data link failures will send a ChannelStatus message to its
upstream neighbor indicating that a failure has occurred (bundling
together the notification of all of the failed data-links).... The
upstream node should correlate the failure to see if the failure is also
detected locally (including ingress side) for the corresponding LSP(s).
If for example, the failure is clear on the input of the upstream node
or internally, then the upstream node will have localized the
failure.... Once the failure has been localized, the signaling protocols
can be used to initiate span or path protection/restoration procedures."
I think we need to specify which protection/restoration architectures
such a ChannelStatus message would be applicable. All I currently see
are boxes and lines, yet we don't know at what layer the
protection/restoration is being performed nor do we know what type of
monitoring is supported (e.g., non-intrusive monitoring, tandem
connection monitoring, etc.). I am not saying that such a mechanism
would not be needed, however I think it is more fundamental to agree on
the architectures first before we attempt to agree on one particular
message that may be needed in some of the architectures. In fact the
ChannelStatus message (if specified) should be included in those
protection/restoration documents that specify architectures that would
require such a message. Note that the ChannelStatus message is actually
a message that is communicated between the end-points of a
protection/restoration subnetwork. The end-points of a
protection/restoration subnetwork could be adjacent cross-connects if
span protection/restoration is supported or the end-points could be
non-adjacent cross-connects if path protection/restoration is supported.
Lumping this ChannelStatus message into LMP automatically forces the
end-points to be adjacent cross-connects.
Also, the paragraph that I quoted above indicates that once the failure
has been localized using the procedures described in LMP, the signaling
protocols can be used to initiate span or path protection/restoration.
Note that for path protection/restoration, the cross-connects themselves
are included within the protection/restoration subnetwork and therefore
path protection/restoration needs to restore connections when
cross-connects themselves fail. I don't see how the mechanism described
in LMP can be used when a cross-connect fails. Assume the network
consists of four cross-connects.
A------B------C
| |
+------D------+
Let's assume that cross-connect B fails. According to the mechanism
described in LMP, Cross-connect C will send a ChannelStatus back to
Cross-connect B, however because B has failed, B will not be able to
process the ChannelStatus message. Therefore I don't see how LMP would
apply to path protection/restoration.
Carmine