1 / 7

MPLS Protection Mechanisms: Status and Update

This document provides an update on the status and progress of the methodology for benchmarking MPLS protection mechanisms. It includes feedback on FRR protection methods and highlights of the merged draft.

langj
Download Presentation

MPLS Protection Mechanisms: Status and Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rajiv Papneja (rpapneja@isocore.com) Samir Vapiwala (svapiwala@cisco.com) Jay Karthik (jkarthik@cisco.com) Scott Poretsky (sporetsky@reefpoint.com) LE ROUX Jean-Louis(jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ft.com Shankar Rao (shankar.rao@qwest.com) IETF BMWGMPLS Protection MechanismsStatus and Update 66th IETF Meeting Montreal

  2. History/Background And Progress So Far

  3. draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge • After an overwhelming support on the list 2 complementing methodology drafts were merged • All the comments to the 2 drafts were addressed in the merged draft • Methodology for benchmarking MPLS Protection mechanisms • draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge-00.txt

  4. Feedbacks on FRR Protection Meth Draft: So far So Good • Overall there seems to be great amount of interest in this work • As more and more ISPs consider deploying this feature, they are looking towards a uniform methodology and terminology across multiple FRR implementations • Many comments on Traffic Generation section • Requests to provide more information on failure detection times (may not be negligible) • Need to describe about RSVP refresh along backup path • Suggestion to add background traffic • When talking of # of labels need to specify where • BFD timer info missing in reporting format • Significance of having large number of scenarios • Nits, Some more clarifications and other editorial work • Recommendation to highlight importance of correlated failures

  5. Highlights of merged draft • Retain the key elements of both drafts • draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt • draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-05.txt • Avoid any duplicate test cases or procedures • Incorporate comments received for both the drafts • Simplify topologies • Total of eight scenarios presented in the merged draft • Use common terminology as defined in • Draft-poretsky-protection-term-02.txt • Incorporates all the received on this item • Including the responses received for the proposal

  6. Current Status • Current Status - Waiting to hear from WG Leadership on the Acceptance of the Work Item • As per previous meeting minutes • Appears more than significant interest in the BMWG working • The interest has reached its peak • 70% of attendees in the last meeting supported the work item • The authors submitted the official proposal on May 3 and call for support ended June 2, 2006 • No negative support received • Overwhelming support on the mailing in favor of making this as work group item • Merged draft was submitted on June 19th, 2006 • Current Milestones • "Terminology For Protection Benchmarking,“ - draft-poretsky-protection-term-02.txt, • Ready for WGLC 07/06 and Ready for IESG 11/06. • "Methodology For MPLS Protection Benchmarking,“ - draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge-00.txt • Submitted 06/06 and Ready for WGLC 11/06 • Ready for IESG 04/07

  7. 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 Villamizer • Jean Philip Vasseur • Karu Ratnam • Arun Gandhi • We would like to thank Agilent for their review of this draft and execution of the methodology to ensure its correctness

More Related