From mter-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 15 05:40:09 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJTQG-0002qj-Nw; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:40:08 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJTQF-0002qe-D8 for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:40:07 -0500 Received: from smtpoutuk01.marconi.com ([128.87.251.112]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJTQE-0004Gh-15 for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:40:07 -0500 Received: from cvdgwy01.uk.marconicomms.com (cvis26.uk.marconicomms.com [128.87.251.109]) by smtpoutuk01.marconi.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2FAZVCS003565 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:39:56 GMT (envelope-from Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com) Sensitivity: To: mter@ietf.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003 Message-ID: From: "Diego Caviglia" Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:37:00 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1(5012HF354 | August 26, 2003) at 15/03/2006 10:39:54 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Subject: [Mter] Any news? X-BeenThere: mter@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-TEchnology Recovery List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mter-bounces@ietf.org Hi all, any news on the MTER activity? Regards Diego PS are there any ID apart the problem statement? _______________________________________________ MTER mailing list MTER@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter From mter-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 15 05:44:58 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJTUw-00058X-Bc; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:44:58 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJTUu-00058Q-EA for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:44:56 -0500 Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.15]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJTUt-0004RW-1f for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:44:56 -0500 Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:44:52 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Mter] Any news? Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:45:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Mter] Any news? Thread-Index: AcZIHNYLXRKfrxGYSS254op+KTXYowAAFEMw From: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" To: "Diego Caviglia" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2006 10:44:52.0445 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D8F90D0:01C6481D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: X-BeenThere: mter@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-TEchnology Recovery List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mter-bounces@ietf.org Hi Diego, We are actually waiting for comments on the problem statement, so feel free to comment! Regards, JL=20 > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Diego Caviglia [mailto:Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com]=20 > Envoy=E9 : mercredi 15 mars 2006 11:37 > =C0 : mter@ietf.org > Objet : [Mter] Any news? >=20 > Hi all, > any news on the MTER activity? >=20 > Regards >=20 > Diego >=20 > PS are there any ID apart the problem statement? >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > MTER mailing list > MTER@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter >=20 _______________________________________________ MTER mailing list MTER@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter From mter-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 15 05:49:02 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJTYs-0007Ig-QM; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:49:02 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJTYs-0007Ib-0T for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:49:02 -0500 Received: from amsfep17-int.chello.nl ([213.46.243.15] helo=amsfep18-int.chello.nl) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJTYq-0004Vs-Jx for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:49:01 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (really [24.132.27.149]) by amsfep18-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with ESMTP id <20060315104859.SLAL12776.amsfep18-int.chello.nl@[192.168.1.3]>; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:48:59 +0100 Message-ID: <4417E305.9060006@chello.nl> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:48:53 +0100 From: Huub van Helvoort User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mter@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Mter] Dead or alive? References: <05ad01c630a5$e0ef6400$36cd6a9c@Puppy> <465D7861-6E17-4B5D-BB4F-C4A4D673E8DF@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <465D7861-6E17-4B5D-BB4F-C4A4D673E8DF@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: X-BeenThere: mter@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-TEchnology Recovery List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mter-bounces@ietf.org Hello JP, On feb 13 you wrote: > A draft is "under progress" that should trigger the discussion. No BOF > scheduled for this IETF. Is the draft already available for review? Is there any time scheduled next week for discussing the draft/BOF for the interested parties? Cheers, Huub. -- ================================================================ http://members.chello.nl/hhelvoort/ ================================================================ Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else... _______________________________________________ MTER mailing list MTER@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter From mter-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 15 06:38:46 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJUL0-0005no-Mf; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 06:38:46 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJUL0-0005nj-Av for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 06:38:46 -0500 Received: from smtpoutuk02.marconi.com ([128.87.251.113]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJUKz-00069t-TT for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 06:38:46 -0500 Received: from cvdgwy01.uk.marconicomms.com (cvis26.uk.marconicomms.com [128.87.251.109]) by smtpoutuk02.marconi.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2FBalkk030179; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:38:39 GMT (envelope-from Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com) Sensitivity: Subject: RE: [Mter] Any news? To: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003 Message-ID: From: "Diego Caviglia" Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:28:16 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1(5012HF354 | August 26, 2003) at 15/03/2006 11:38:38 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 36b1f8810cb91289d885dc8ab4fc8172 Cc: " X-BeenThere: mter@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-TEchnology Recovery List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mter-bounces@ietf.org Hi Jean-Louis, actually I'm interested in interworking between data pla= ne protection and control plane recovery mechanism. My major concern on that issue is the interworking between the MS-SPRin= g and GMPLS recovery. Section 5.3.1 states that: "Note that some data plane recovery mechanisms such as the SONET/SDH protection mechanism may co-exist with GMPLS P&R mechanisms. The co-= existence with data plane recovery and GMPLS recovery mechanisms is not addressed in this section." Moreover "7. Future items Here is a non exhaustive set of additional items that need to be covered as part of the MTER work: - Other combinations of recovery techniques (e.g. BGP-IGP interactions, IGP-IPFRR interactions, etc.); - Superset of elementary combinations (e.g IGP Fast Convergence for= node data plane failures + Graceful Restart for node control plan= e failures + MPLS FRR link protection for link failures). - Combination of recovery techniques to protect distinct traffics (e.g. IGP Fast convergence and end-to-end MPLS-TE recovery); " Is the interworking between 'data palane' protection scheme and GMPLS recovery mechanism in the scope of MTER? My vote on that question is yes, that issue needs to be addressed. Huub Dino and myself have written a requirement ID about the interworki= ng between MS-SPRing and GMPLS (http://www1.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-gmpls-msspri= ng-req-00.txt), is that work in the scope of MTER? My last impression was that was in= the scope, is that impression correct? Section 6.1 quotes AIS as possible mechanism to detect failures. Is the following possible issue in the scope of MTER (actually is a partitioning problem rather that a layer problem) a<--------->b<--------->c<------->D<--------->E<---------->F<----------= >G<-------->h<---------->i<-------->z Caps letters indicates GMPLS capable nodes while the low caps are legac= y SDH/SONET nodes. One can say that D, E, F, G is the backbone network while a, b, c and h= , i, z are two access network. A network operator wants to set up a trail fom a to z, we can see that trail made by three pieces: 1) a<----->D 2) D<----->G 3) G<----->z Pieces 1 and 3 are set-up via NMS and are not under the control of the GMPLS while piece 2 is an e2e restored circuit. If the AIS is used as trigger for the GMPLS restoration a failure in ei= ther piece 1 or 2 (that injects AIS along all the trail) can trigger the e2e= GMPLS recovery scheme. Given that the failure is not recoverable insid= e the piece 2, the risk is that restoration never ends. Regards Diego "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" o= n 15/03/2006 11.45.00 To: "Diego Caviglia" , cc: Subject: RE: [Mter] Any news? Hi Diego, We are actually waiting for comments on the problem statement, so feel free to comment! Regards, JL > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Diego Caviglia [mailto:Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com] > Envoy=E9 : mercredi 15 mars 2006 11:37 > =C0 : mter@ietf.org > Objet : [Mter] Any news? > > Hi all, > any news on the MTER activity? > > Regards > > Diego > > PS are there any ID apart the problem statement? > > > > _______________________________________________ > MTER mailing list > MTER@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter > _______________________________________________ MTER mailing list MTER@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter = _______________________________________________ MTER mailing list MTER@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter From mter-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 15 07:51:12 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVT6-0008OV-8L; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:51:12 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVT4-0008Nf-PK for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:51:10 -0500 Received: from cypress.ugent.be ([157.193.49.13]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVT2-00085Z-Ak for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:51:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cypress.UGent.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72526382610; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:51:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from cypress.UGent.be ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gibbon.UGent.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24272-04; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:51:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from plinius.intec.ugent.be (plinius.intec2.rug.ac.be [157.193.214.4]) by cypress.UGent.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CE738260A; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:51:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by plinius.intec.ugent.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ECABD58; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:51:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [157.193.214.109] (andersen2.intec.ugent.be [157.193.214.109]) by plinius.intec.ugent.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFBFBD56; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:51:04 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <44180DB6.80607@intec.UGent.be> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:51:02 +0100 From: Didier Colle User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Diego Caviglia Subject: Re: [Mter] Any news? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020222 X-Virus-Scanned: by UGent DICT X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8 Cc: mter@ietf.org X-BeenThere: mter@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-TEchnology Recovery List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mter-bounces@ietf.org Dear Diego, [CUT] >Section 6.1 quotes AIS as possible mechanism to detect failures. > >Is the following possible issue in the scope of MTER (actually is a >partitioning problem rather that a layer problem) > >a<--------->b<--------->c<------->D<--------->E<---------->F<---------->G<-------->h<---------->i<-------->z > >Caps letters indicates GMPLS capable nodes while the low caps are legacy >SDH/SONET nodes. > >One can say that D, E, F, G is the backbone network while a, b, c and h, i, >z are two access network. > >A network operator wants to set up a trail fom a to z, we can see that >trail made by three pieces: >1) a<----->D >2) D<----->G >3) G<----->z > >Pieces 1 and 3 are set-up via NMS and are not under the control of the >GMPLS while piece 2 is an e2e restored circuit. > >If the AIS is used as trigger for the GMPLS restoration a failure in either >piece 1 or 2 (that injects AIS along all the trail) can trigger the e2e >GMPLS recovery scheme. Given that the failure is not recoverable inside >the piece 2, the risk is that restoration never ends. > > > You are right this is an issue. However, I believe the typical solution to overcome this problem is establishing a tandem connection in each of the three segments and making use of the sublayer supervision function in order to allow detecting whether the failure occured ON or UPSTREAM OF the tandem connection. For example: when a failure occurs in segment 1 (thus a<---->D) then D will translate the the AU_AIS into a IncAIS (N-bytes in the path overhead of the tandem connection D->G). G will detect this IncAIS and will simply generate AIS downstream. However, when segment 2 fails (thus D<--->G), then G may receive an AU_AIS (and not a IncAIS) implying that it has to trigger the GMPLS P&R. Kind regards, Didier [CUT] -- Didier Colle Ghent University - IMEC - IBBT Department of Information Technology (INTEC) Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201, B-9050 LEDEBERG Email: didier.colle@intec.UGent.be MSN: didiercolle@hotmail.com Skype: didiercolle Tel. +32 9 331 4970 Fax. +32 9 331 4899 WWW: www.ibcn.intec.UGent.be _______________________________________________ MTER mailing list MTER@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter From mter-bounces@ietf.org Wed Mar 15 08:09:02 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVkM-00009A-KE; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:09:02 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVkL-000095-UC for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:09:01 -0500 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVkL-0000KB-Sg for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:09:01 -0500 Received: from smtpoutuk01.marconi.com ([128.87.251.112]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJVkK-0007yH-1R for mter@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:09:01 -0500 Received: from cvdgwy01.uk.marconicomms.com (cvis26.uk.marconicomms.com [128.87.251.109]) by smtpoutuk01.marconi.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2FCuAC3024657; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:08:53 GMT (envelope-from Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com) Sensitivity: Subject: Re: [Mter] Any news? To: "Didier Colle X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.12 February 13, 2003 Message-ID: From: "Diego Caviglia" Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:01:11 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on CVDGWY01/S/EXT/MC1(5012HF354 | August 26, 2003) at 15/03/2006 13:08:52 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: mter X-BeenThere: mter@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Multi-TEchnology Recovery List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: mter-bounces@ietf.org Hi Didier, that is more or less the same idea I had to solve this issue. What I'm concerned with is that this usage of TCM prevent carries to use TCM for 'normal' purposes. Regards Diego [cut] > You are right this is an issue. However, I believe the typical solution > to overcome this problem is establishing a tandem connection in each of > the three segments and making use of the sublayer supervision function > in order to allow detecting whether the failure occured ON or UPSTREAM > OF the tandem connection. > For example: when a failure occurs in segment 1 (thus a<---->D) then D > will translate the the AU_AIS into a IncAIS (N-bytes in the path > overhead of the tandem connection D->G). G will detect this IncAIS and > will simply generate AIS downstream. However, when segment 2 fails (thus > D<--->G), then G may receive an AU_AIS (and not a IncAIS) implying that > it has to trigger the GMPLS P&R. > > Kind regards, > > Didier _______________________________________________ MTER mailing list MTER@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mter