[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
Yes I agree. Maybe given the status of protection and complexities that
it would introduce, can we treat it as a separate "function" of GMPLS
and pull it out of the current document and into a new document that
deals exclusively with protection?
It would be a (relatively) simple task:
(1) Remove section 7 of gmpls-sig doc
(2) Remove section 6 of gmpls-rsvpte doc
(3) Remove section 6 of gmpls-crldp doc
and put these sections under a new document called gmpls-recovery (or
gmpls-protection) and then start work on this separately.
Ben Mack-Crane wrote:
> A while ago there was a draft proposing a fairly comprehensive
> signaling solution for protection. At the time, there was not
> as much support for working on protection as there is now.
> There are several attributes that could be signaled in setting up
> a protection mechanism, including
> - whether the path is a working or recovery path
> - what notification mechanism is used to trigger the protection mechanism
> - hold-off time
> - wait-to-restore time, and
> - revertive operation
> This was an early draft, so there may be other attributes needed, or some
> simplification might be possible. In any case, the working group must
> decide how to progress the protection work. I don't think it is a good
> idea to take an ill-defined (and perhaps incomplete) solution to RFC.
> Zhi-Wei Lin wrote:
>>To further the discussion, would it be possible to add a new flag for
>>purpose of identifying whether or not a connection (secondary
>>connection) can support extra traffic. A 1:1 connection should be able
>>to support extra traffic (if secondary is not used) while a 1+1 would
>>not support extra traffic.
>>Also, we may want to add a flag for whether or not a protection is
>>Also, current "link flags" is assumed to provide link protection. Maybe
>>we can add a new flag for either "link" or "path" protection.
>>So the total is three new flags using 3 bits, out of the current 25
>>What do you think?
>>John Drake wrote:
>>>From: Ben Mack-Crane [mailto:Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:38 AM
>>>To: Lou Berger
>>>Cc: Kireeti Kompella; email@example.com
>>>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.