RE: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Jonathan....review the text below....I think the problem is 1:1.

neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:jplang@calient.net]
> Sent: 12 December 2001 17:46
> To: 'Ben Mack-Crane'; John Drake
> Cc: Lou Berger; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
> 
> 
> Ben,
>   Please see inline.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Mack-Crane [mailto:Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 8:56 AM
> > To: John Drake
> > Cc: Lou Berger; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
> > 
> > 
> > See comment below.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Ben 
> > 
> > John Drake wrote:
> > > 
> > > Snipped
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ben Mack-Crane [mailto:Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:38 AM
> > > To: Lou Berger
> > > Cc: Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >7) In Protection Information it states "The resources 
> > allocated for a
> > > > >    secondary LSP MAY be used by other LSPs until the 
> > primary LSP fails
> > > > >    over to the secondary LSP."  This may not always be 
> > the case.  An
> > > > >    explicit flag indicating whether or not extra 
> > traffic may use the
> > > > >    secondary path resources is needed.
> > > >
> > > > ??? This is the purpose of this bit.
> > > 
> > > This is not clear from the definition.  The bit is defined 
> > as indicating
> > > the LSP is a secondary (or protecting) LSP and in 1+1 
> protection the
> > > secondary LSP may not be used for extra traffic.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps the problem here is that protection features are 
> > being defined
> > > before the protection framework and requirements are 
> done.  Is this
> > > presupposing some particular outcome of the recovery work in CAMP?
> > > 
> > > JD:  I think the definition of the bit is fine.  For both 
> > 1+1 and 1:1
> > > protection, there would be a pair of Primary LSPs between 
> the source
> > > and destination, rather than a Primary and a Secondary.
> > 
> > This is an unusual use of terms.  I have never encountered a case
> > where both the working and recovery paths are call "primary."
> > 
> > This is not consistent with either draft-mpls-recovery-framework
> > or with draft-lang-ccamp-recovery.  I think this is a sign that the
> > protection work is immature and not ready for progressing to RFC.
> > 
> For 1+1 path protection, both working/recovery paths are 
> carrying user data
> traffic and it is an endpoint decision as to which path is 
> actually the
> working/recovery path.  At a transit node, both paths need to 
> be treated as
> primary, as the resources are currently being used and 
> obviously can't be
> used for Extra Traffic.
>