The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] [mpls-tp] RES: R: discussion on ring protection inMPLS-TP
let's take a step back. Requirements exist based on a use/deployment case. What is the use case for rings - can someone articulate it clearly (if it has been presented elsewhere great we can reuse that). From the use case we can distil the true requirements From the requirements we can evaluate solutions. It may be that the use/deployment case for mpls-tp may differ from sdh and so the requirements may be subtlely different. It may be that the nature of a packet based technology means that the requirements can be satisfied in an alternative way to in a circuit switched technology. In any case let's start with a clearly define use/deployment case and work from there. Ben -----Original Message----- From: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> To: "Italo Busi" <Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.it> Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org> Sent: 02/09/2008 16:18 Subject: Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] RES: R: discussion on ring protection inMPLS-TP Italo, inline Italo Busi wrote: > Salvio, > > "I think we need to start from the requirements ..." that far I agree! but I think what needs to be said in the second part of the sentence is "... and not from the solutions ring protoection or FRR." Also, since we are seeking MPLS compatibility, once we have the requirments we need to evaluate/analyze the existing mpls solutions to seee if they meet the requirements, and sedond build something new. /Loa > > Italo > > > _____ > > From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Salvio Straube Stecz > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 4:29 PM > To: mpls-tp@ietf.org > Subject: [mpls-tp] RES: R: discussion on ring protection in MPLS-TP > > > > Hi all, > > I think that for the MPLS-TP, the better protection scheme to be used is > fast-reroute - FRR. Comparing to SDH-like ring protection it can works like > MS-SPring, where is possible to achieve less than 50ms switching time, and the > use of the protection side of the ring to carry extra-traffic. There are already > equipment in the market that works with this idea. > > > > > rgds, > ------------------------------------------------ > Sálvio Straube Stecz > GVT - Global Village Telecom > Planning - Transport Networks > +55 41 3022 - 9451 > +55 41 8848 - 3428 > salvio.stecz@gvt.com.br > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org]Em nome de > Diego Caviglia > Enviada em: sexta-feira, 29 de agosto de 2008 10:38 > Para: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it > Cc: mpls-tp@ietf.org; mpls-sp@testbed.se > Assunto: [mpls-tp] R: discussion on ring protection in MPLS-TP > > > Ciao Alessandro, > I think you made a good point. > > If, as stated in sveral documents, mpls-tp is going to replace sdh we > have to consider that most of the metro and metro core topology are ring > based. > > Br > > Diego > _______________________________________________ > mpls-tp mailing list > mpls-tp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > mpls-tp mailing list > mpls-tp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.nu _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|