[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

protection and restoration [was: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06]



Eric,

One of the requirements we have to meet is that traffic of user A is not
delivered to user B. Also during recovery from a failed connection (either by
means of protection swithcing, or restoration) we have to guarantee that user A
traffic is not delivered to user B. This adds additional requirements to the
operation of the 1:1/ET (with extra traffic), 1:n, 1:n/ET, etc architectures;
these have a potential to temporarily connect A to B.

In protection switching this is guaranteed by means of the combination of
protection architecture and protection switching protocol type (1-phase,
2-phase, 3-phase protocols). 
The tail end normal output #i of the protected domain will never select from the
protection connection until it is guaranteed that normal input #i at the head
end is bridged onto this protection connection. And vice versa, the tail end
will deselect the protection connection before the head end will put a different
signal onto that protection connection.

I assume that for the case of restoration and fast restoration, the same
requirement is applicable. Has this requirement been considered in the work on
fast restoration?

It looks like "fast restoration" is a control plane based protection switching.
Is my understanding correct?

If so, with transport plane based protection switching build into SDH/SONET and
OTN, is fast restoration being a pre-OTN feature? I assume there is no need to
replace SDH/SONET/OTN transport plane based protection switching by control
plane based protection switching.
As pre-OTN (STM/OC-N or GE over WDM) doesn't have any protection switching
defined in the transport plane, pre-OTN has no alternative to control plane
based protection.

Regards,

Maarten



"Mannie, Eric" wrote:
> 
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> John refers to fast restoration schemes that are being studied at the IETF.
> Such schemes are widely implemented in the new classes of optical/TDM
> equipments.
> 
> The wording of the text just need to use the terms "working" LSP and
> "protecting" LSP, instead of primary and secondary. That's just an editing
> modification.
> 
> The bit itself is useful to qualify the LSP being established.
> 
> The mechanisms to be applied to this qualification will be detailed in other
> documents.
> 
> In the mean time, I guess that this bit can be used by implementations for a
> simple restoration scheme (e.g. first establish working and protecting LSPs,
> resources of protecting LSP may be "soft reserved", i.e. for extra-traffic,
> when a fault occur send an RSVP-TE rapid failure notification to the source,
> send Path with bit set to "working" on protecting LSP, this kills all LSPs
> using these resources, when acked switch to this LSP).
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 7:38 PM
> To: John Drake
> Cc: Maarten Vissers; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
> 
> John,
> The problem here is that this is not compatible with transport plane
> protection.
> Assume you do 1:n MSP protection according to ITU Rec. G.841. The operation
> of
> the protection group is controlled by exchange of the K1, K2 bytes in the
> MSOH of the PROTECTION MS. If the control plane reuses the protection MS at
> for a different LSP at a time when the state of the protection group is
> "No Request" (assuming no extra traffic carried on the protection section in
> the
> transport plane), this disables the protection since the endpoints of the
> protection group are no longer able to exchange K1, K2 over the protection
> channel. Even though the payload is unused and irrelevant to the transport
> plane at this point, the exchange of overhead is essential to proper
> operation
> of the protection group.
> Regards,
> Steve
> 
> John Drake wrote:
> >
> > Steven,
> >
> > The basic idea is that if a connection is of type 'secondary', then other
> > LSPs of type 'primary' between the same or different source/destination
> > pairs MAY use its resources in intermediate nodes, until that LSP is
> > converted into a 'primary' with a subsequent Path/Resv flow.  At this
> point,
> > other LSPs that were using its resources may get pre-empted.  Think of the
> > primary/secondary mechanism as a way to ensure temporal priority while
> > allowing network resources to be re-used; i.e., an LSP of type 'secondary'
> > is carrying no data.
> >
> > So in the 1:1 case the protect LSP could be established either as a
> primary
> > or secondary LSP, while in the 1:N case the protect LSP would be
> established
> > as a secondary.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:15 PM
> > To: John Drake
> > Cc: Maarten Vissers; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
> >
> > John,
> > It would seem from this standpoint, ANY transport plane protection
> > must use "primary" for all trails. You have already made this argument
> > for the 1+1 case to carry the permanently bridged copy of the payload.
> >
> > In 1:1 or 1:n, when protection is not being used to carry one/any of
> > the normal traffic signals, it may either carry a null signal (no bridge)
> > or transport plane extra traffic. Even if the transport plane has only
> > a null signal on protection, the control plane cannot itself place extra
> > traffic on any portion of the end-to-end protection channel as this is
> > where the APS protocol is carried to coordinate the 1:1 or 1:n protection.
> > The protection channel overhead is chosen to carry the APS since it is
> > necessary to exchange APS bytes to complete a switch when working channels
> > are failed. If the protection channel has failed and APS cannot be
> > exchanged,
> > normal traffic signals will not be selected from protection.
> > Regards,
> > Steve
> >
> > John Drake wrote:
> > >
> > > Maarten,
> > >
> > > That's fine, however it's beside the point.  The semantics of
> > > Primary/Secondary refer to the control plane and whether the node
> > > establishing a given LSP is planning to use it at the time it's
> > established
> > > or at a later time.  As I indicated in an earlier note, 1+1 transport
> > plane
> > > protection would be accomplished in the control plane by establishing
> two
> > > LSPs of type Primary.  The control plane really doesn't care which LSP
> the
> > > transport plane is using as Working and which as Protect, although that
> > > information is available to the control plane at the LSP endpoints.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:mvissers@lucent.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:15 AM
> > > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
> > >
> > > There exist well defined protection terminology in ITU-T for the
> transport
> > > plane. "Working" and "Protection" are being used and not
> > primary/secondary.
> > > E.g.
> > > a 1+1 architecture has one working connection, one protection connection
> > and
> > > a
> > > permanent bridge.
> > >
> > > Besides working/protection indication for the transport entity, there is
> > > - "active" and "standby" to indicate if the signal is selected from the
> > > working
> > > or protection transport entity; i.e. if selector selects from working,
> the
> > > working is active and protection is standby, if the selector selects
> from
> > > protection the working is standby and the protection is active.
> > > - "normal" and "extra traffic" signal. The normal signal is protected.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Maarten
> > >
> > > neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > > >
begin:vcard 
n:Vissers;Maarten
tel;cell:+31 62 061 3945
tel;fax:+31 35 687 5976
tel;home:+31 35 526 5463
tel;work:+31 35 687 4270
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Optical Network Group;Lucent Technologies Nederland
version:2.1
email;internet:mvissers@lucent.com
title:Consulting Member of Technical Staff
adr;quoted-printable:;;Botterstraat 45=0D=0A=0D=0A;1271 XL Huizen;;;The Netherlands
fn:Maarten Vissers
end:vcard