Re: SE style in optical neyworks

[Suresh Katukam <skatukam@cisco.com>]

Sudheer,

You are correct.  I just sent a mail before reading your mail
and it should clarify in detail to others..

-- Suresh


At 02:11 PM 4/12/2002 -0700, Sudheer Dharanikota wrote:

>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