Re: SE style in optical neyworks

[Sudheer Dharanikota <sudheer@nayna.com>]

Hi Gentelmen:

I changed this list to camp, as it is more appropriate
for this discussion.

I would like to understand the following..

Assumptions:

- Segments of network are inherantly made protected.
  For example, as suresh said, span/UPSR/BLSR etc protected.

- PAth request contains requirements to set up a path
  of *certain* protection guarantees without knowing the
 topoogy and its capability

Now ...

If i want to set up an end-to-end *backup* path, it is the network
(intermediate nodes) which has to decide if a *backup*
link or a segment need to be overloaded. Don't you think in this
case SE may make sense.

Thanks for your input.

sudheer

John Ellson wrote:

> Suresh Katukam wrote:
> >
> > Zhi,
> >
> > You are correct about 1+1 path protected...
> >
> > But if you have a LSP that is protected by some 1+1 links and some
> > UPSRs, BLSRs etc.. then this LSP contains mixed protection schemes
> > (I am not sure what you call this LSP - 1+1 protected, just Protected
> > circuit).
> > In this case, SE style can be used..
>
> If you're talking about nodes other than the nodes that are
> at the the ends of the protection span, then I suggest that you just refer
> to it as a "reliable segment".  It shouldn't matter
> to the end-systems how that segment reliability is achieved.
>
> Protection is only interesting to nodes that have to take part in it,
> otherwise its just a segment of a connection with a greater or
> lesser propensity to failure.
>
> John Ellson