67th IETF Meeting San Diego

1. Rajiv Papneja (rpapneja@isocore.com) Samir Vapiwala (svapiwala@cisco.com) Jay Karthik (jkarthik@cisco.com) Scott Poretsky (sporetsky@reefpoint.com) JL Le Roux (jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ft.com Shankar Rao (shankar.rao@qwest.com) IETF BMWGMPLS Protection MechanismsStatus and Update 67th IETF Meeting San Diego

2. New Draft standing to become the WG item – draft - papneja - mpls - protection - meth - merge - 00 . txt June 2006 History/Background And Progress So Far Terminology For Protection Benchmarking Benchmarking Methodology for MPLS Protection draft - kimura - protection - term - 00 . txt - October 2002 Mechanisms draft - kimura - protection - term - 01 . txt - April 2003 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 00 June 2003 Parallel Efforts draft - kimura - protection - term - 02 . txt – October 2003 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 01 Oct . 2003 draft - kimura - protection - term - 02 . txt – April 2005 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 02 Feb 2004 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 03 draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 04 Created single work item July 2005 with common Terminology Common Terminology created With Effort led by Kimura - san Received numerous comments for additional test cases and benchmarking metrics Terminology For Protection e l b a Benchmarking – July 2005 c i l p p A draft - poretsky - protection - term - 00 . txt Created draft - poretsky - mpls - protection - meth - 05 Feb 2006 December 2005 More Protection Scenarios Proposed Under Final WG Item draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt Work Group Item 1. draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-00.txt 2. draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-00.txt Mailing List Decision to Merge The two Efforts – Followed by action item from Dallas IETF WG Item Final Decision 1 . Significant Interest in the effort 2 . Interest has reached peak 3 . Formal Proposal Submitted to the Mailing list 4 . Significant support received / 5 . New Merged Draft Submitted

3. Draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-00.txt • After an overwhelming support on the list two complementing protection benchmarking methodology drafts were merged • draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge-00.txt • Further comments from the IETF 66 were incorporated to produce • Draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-00.txt • Draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-00.txt

4. Update from Previous Version • Retain the key elements of both drafts • draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt • draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-05.txt • Added reviews and addressed comments received on • Draft-papneja-protection-meth-merge-00.txt • Removed any duplicate test cases or procedures • Simplified topologies and added self explanatory terms to the diagrams • Use common terminology as defined in • draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-00.txt • Added a basic MPLS benchmarking test

5. Next Steps • Need for WG feedback on this new working group Item • What specific aspects would benefit from WG review? • Ensuring all FRR scenarios are covered • Ensuring all failure scenarios are covered by the current version • Input on the traffic profiling, that might assist in automations • New Terminologies • What issues are we seeking the WG's help to resolve? • Finalizing the terms in the terminology document, and agreement with the definitions • We look forward for the WG to advise on any issue with this work item • Looking forward to be ready for WG Last Call

6. Acknowledgements • Thanks to BMWG-ers for support shown in the work item • The authors wish to thank the following for their invaluable input to the merged document • Curtis Villamizar • Jean Philippe Vasseur • Karu Ratnam • Arun Gandhi