[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-weingarten-mpls-tp-ring-protection) 00 01 02 RFC 6974

Network Working Group                                      Y. Weingarten
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                                 S. Bryant
Expires: October 31, 2012                                          Cisco
                                                             N. Sprecher
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                           D. Ceccarelli
                                                             D. Caviglia
                                                             F. Fondelli
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                M. Corsi
                                                                  Altran
                                                                   B. Wu
                                                                  X. Dai
                                                         ZTE Corporation
                                                          April 29, 2012


     Applicability of MPLS-TP Linear Protection for Ring Topologies
               draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-02.txt

Abstract

   This document presents an applicability statement to address the
   requirements for protection of ring topologies for Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Label Switched Paths
   (LSP) on multiple layers.  The MPLS-TP Requirements document
   specifies specific criteria for justification of dedicated protection
   mechanism for particular topologies, including optimizing the number
   of OAM entities needed, minimizing the number of labels for
   protection paths, minimizing the number of recovery elements in the
   network, and minimizing the number of control and management
   transactions necessary.  The document proposes a methodology for ring
   protection based on existing MPLS-TP survivability mechanisms,
   specifically those defined in MPLS-TP Linear Protection, without the
   need for specification of new constructs or protocols.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as
   defined by the ITU-T.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 31, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

























Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Problem statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.3.  Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.  P2P Ring Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  Wrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2.  Steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.3.  P2P ring protection using SPME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.3.1.  Path SPME for Steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.3.2.  Wrapping with segment based SPME . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.3.3.  Wrapping node protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.3.4.  Wrapping for link and node protection  . . . . . . . . 14
     2.4.  Analysis of p2p protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   3.  P2MP protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.1.  Wrapping for p2mp LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       3.1.1.  Comparison of Wrapping and ROM-Wrapping  . . . . . . . 17
       3.1.2.  Multiple Failures Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.2.  Steering for p2mp paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       3.2.1.  Context labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       3.2.2.  Walkthrough using context labels . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   4.  Coordination protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   5.  Conclusions and Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26






















Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


1.  Introduction

   Multi-Protocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is being
   standardized as part of a joint effort between the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the International Telecommunication
   Union Standardization (ITU-T).  These specifications are based on the
   requirements that were generated from this joint effort.

   The requirements for MPLS-TP [TPReqs] indicates a requirement to
   support a network that may include sub-networks that constitute a
   MPLS-TP ring as defined in the requirements.  The requirements
   document does not identify any protection requirements specific to a
   ring topology.  However, the requirements state that specific
   protection mechanisms aimed at ring topologies may be developed if
   these allow the network to optimize:

   o  Number of OAM entities needed to trigger the protection

   o  Number of elements of recovery needed

   o  Number of labels required

   o  Number of control and management plane transactions during a
      recovery operation

   o  Impact of signaling and routing information exchanged, in presence
      of control plane

   This document will propose a set of basic mechanisms that could be
   used for the protection of the data flows that traverse a MPLS-TP
   ring.  The mechanism is based on existing MPLS and MPLS-TP protection
   mechanisms.  We show that this mechanism provides the ability to
   protect all of the basic conditions within a reasonable time frame
   and does optimize the criteria set out in [TPReqs] as summarized
   above.

   A related topic in [TPReqs] addresses the required support for
   interconnected rings.  This topic involves various scenarios that
   require further study and will be addressed in a separate document,
   based on the principles outlined in this document.

1.1.  Problem statement

   Ring topologies, as defined in [TPReqs], are used in transport
   networks due to their ability to easily support both p2p and p2mp
   transport paths.  When designing a protection mechanism for a ring
   topology, there is a need to address both -




Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   1.  A point-to-point transport path that enters a MPLS-TP capable
       ring at one node, the ingress node, and exits the ring at a
       single egress node possibly continuing beyond the ring.

   2.  Where the ring is being used as a branching point for a point-to-
       multipoint transport path, i.e. the transport path enters the
       MPLS-TP capable ring at the ingress node and exits through a
       number of egress nodes, possibly continuing beyond the ring.

   In either of these two situations, there is a need to address the
   following different cases -

   1.  One of the ring links causes a fault condition.  This could be
       either a unidirectional or bidirectional fault, and should be
       detected by the neighboring nodes.

   2.  One of the ring nodes causes a fault condition.  This condition
       is invariably a bidirectional fault (although in rare cases of
       misconfiguration this could be detected as a unidirectional
       fault) and should be detected by the two neighboring ring nodes.

   3.  An operator command is issued to a specific ring node.  A
       description of the different operator commands is found in
       Section 4.12 of [RFC4427].  Examples of these commands include
       Manual Switch, Forced Switch, or Clear operations.

   The protection domain addressed in this document is limited to the
   traffic that is traversing the ring.  Traffic on the transport path
   prior to the ring ingress node or beyond the egress nodes may be
   protected by some other mechanism.

1.2.  Terminology and Notation

   The terminology used in this document is based on the terminology
   defined in the MPLS-TP framework documents:

   o  MPLS-TP Framework[TPFwk]

   o  MPLS-TP OAM Framework[OAMFwk]

   o  MPLS-TP Survivability Framework[SurvivFwk]

   The MPLS-TP Framework document [TPFwk] defines a Sub-Path Maintenance
   Entity (SPME) construct that can be defined between any two LSRs of a
   MPLS-TP LSP.  This SPME may be configured as a co-routed
   bidirectional path.  The SPME is defined to allow management and
   monitoring of any segment of a transport path.  This concept will be
   used extensively throughout the document to support protection of the



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   traffic that traverses a MPLS-TP ring.

   In addition, we describe the use of the label stack in connection
   with the redirecting of data packets by the protection mechanism.
   The following syntax will be used to describe the contents of the
   label stack:

   1.  The label stack will be enclosed in square brackets ("[]")

   2.  Each level in the stack will be separated by the '|' character.
       It should be noted that the label stack may contain additional
       levels however, we only present the levels that are germane to
       the protection mechanism.

   3.  When applicable, the S-bit (signifying that a given label is the
       bottom of the label stack) will be denoted by the string '+S'
       within the label.  If a label is not shown with '+S' that label
       may or may not be the bottom label in the stack. '+S' is only
       shown when it is important to illustrate that a given label is
       definitely the last one in the label stack.

   4.  The label of the LSP at the ingress point to the ring will be
       denoted by the string "LI" and the label of the LSP that is
       expected at the egress point from the ring will be denoted by the
       string "LE", and "LSE" will denote the label expected at the exit
       LSR of a SPME (if it is different from the egress point from the
       ring).

   5.  The label for a SPME will be denoted by Pxi(y) where x and y are
       LSR identifiers and the intention is to the label for LSR-x to
       transmit to LSR-y over the SPME whose index is i.

   For example -

   o  the label stack [LI] denotes the label stack received at the
      ingress node of the ring.  This may have additional labels after
      LI, e.g. a PW label however, this is irrelevant to the discussion
      of the protection scenario.

   o  [PB1(G)|LE] denotes a stack whose top-label is the SPME-1 label
      for LSR-B to transmit the data packet to LSR-G, the second label
      is the label that would be used by the egress LSR to continue the
      packet on the original LSP.

   o  If "LE" were the bottom label in the stack, then the label stack
      would be shown as [PB1(G)|LE+S].





Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


1.3.  Contributing Authors

   Akira Sakurai (NEC), Rolf Winter (NEC)


2.  P2P Ring Protection

   Classically there are two protection architecture mechanisms for ring
   topologies, based on SDH specifications [G.841], that have been
   proposed in various forums to perform recovery of a topological ring
   network - "wrapping" and "steering".  The following sub-sections will
   examine these two mechanisms.

2.1.  Wrapping

   Wrapping is defined as a local protection architecture.  This
   mechanism is local to the LSRs that are neighbors to the detected
   fault.  When a fault is detected (either a link or node failure), the
   neighboring LSR can identify that the fault would prevent forwarding
   of the data along the data path.  Therefore, in order to continue the
   data along the path, there is need to "wrap" all data traffic around
   the ring, on an alternate data path, until arriving at the LSR that
   is on the opposite side of the fault.  When this LSR also detects
   that there is a fault condition on the LSP, it can identify that the
   data traffic that is arriving on the alternate (protecting) data path
   is intended for the "broken" LSP.  Therefore, again taking a local
   decision, can wrap the data back onto the normal working path until
   the egress from the ring segment.  Wrapping behavior is similar to
   MPLS-TE FRR as defined in [RFC4090] using either bypass or detour
   tunnels.  It would be possible to wrap each LSP arounf the failed
   links via a detour tunnel using a different label for each LSP or to
   wrap all the LSPs using a bypass tunnel and a single label.


                                ___ ######## ___ ######## ___
                        ======>/LSR\********/LSR\***XX***/LSR\
                               \_B_/@@@@@@@@\_A_/        \_F_/
                                 *@                       #*
                                 *@                       #*
                                 *@                       #*
                                _*@          ___          #*_
                               /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\======>
                               \_C_/@@@@@@@@\_D_/@@@@@@@@\_E_/

                   ===> connected LSP  *** physical link
                   ###  working path   @@@ wrapped data path

                Figure 1: Wrapping protection for p2p path



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   In this figure we have a ring with a LSP that enters the ring at
   LSR-B and exits at LSR-E.  The normal working path follows through
   B-A-F-E.  If a fault is detected on the link A<-->F, then the
   wrapping mechanism decides that LSR-A would wrap the traffic around
   the ring, on a wrapped data path A-B-C-D-E-F, to arrive at LSR-F (on
   the far side of the failed link).  LSR-F would then wrap the data
   packets back onto the working path F-->E to the egress node.  In this
   protection scheme, the traffic will follow the path -
   B-A-B-C-D-E-F-E.

   This protection scheme is simple in the sense that there is no need
   for coordination between the different LSR in the ring - only the
   LSRs that detect the fault must wrap the traffic, either onto the
   wrapped data path (at the near-end) or back to the working path (at
   the far-end).  Coordination would only be needed to maintain co-
   routed bidirectional traffic even in cases of a unidirectional fault
   condition.

   The following considerations should be taken into account when
   considering use of wrapping protection:

   o  Detection of loss-of-continuity or mis-connectivity, should be
      performed at the link level and/or per LSR when using node-level
      protection.  Configuration of the protection being performed (i.e.
      link protection or node protection) needs to be performed
      a-priori, since the configuration of the proper protection path is
      dependent upon this decision.

   o  There is a need to define a data-path that traverses the alternate
      path around the ring to connect between the two neighbors of the
      detected fault.  If protecting both the links and the nodes of a
      LSP, then, for a ring with N nodes, there is a need for O(2N)
      alternate paths.

   o  When wrapping, the data is transmitted over some of the links
      twice, once in each direction.  For example, in the figure above
      the traffic is transmitted both B-->A and then A-->B, later it is
      transmitted E-->F and F-->E. This means that there is additional
      bandwidth needed for this protection.

   o  If a double-fault situation occurs in the ring, then wrapping will
      not be able to deliver any packets except between the ingress and
      the first fault location.  This is based on the need for wrapping
      to connect between the neighbors of the fault location, and this
      is not possible in the segmented ring.

   o  The resource allocation for the alternate-paths could be
      problematic, since most of these alternate paths will not be used



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


      simultaneously.  One possibility could be to allocate '0'
      resources and depend on the NMS to allocate the proper resources
      around the ring.

   o  Wrapping also involves greater latency in delivering the packets,
      as a result of traversing the entire ring.  This could be very
      restrictive for large rings.

2.2.  Steering

   The second common scheme for ring protection, steering, takes
   advantage of the ring topology by defining two paths from the ingress
   point (to the ring) to the egress point going in opposite directions
   around the ring.  This is illustrated in Figure 2, where if we assume
   that the traffic needs to enter the ring from node B and exit through
   node F, we could define a primary path through nodes B-A-F, and an
   alternate path through the nodes B-C-D-E-F.  In steering the
   switching is always performed by the ingress node (node B in
   Figure 2).  If a fault condition is detected anywhere on the working
   path (B-A-F), then the traffic would be redirected by B to the
   alternate path (i.e.  B-C-D-E-F).

   This mechanism bears similarities to linear 1:1 protection
   [SurvivFwk].  The two paths around the ring act as the working and
   protection paths.  There is need to communicate to the ingress node
   the need to switch over to the protection path and there is a need to
   coordinate the switchover between the two end-points of the protected
   domain.

   The following considerations must be taken into account regarding the
   steering architecture:

   o  Steering relies on a failure detection method that is able to
      notify the ingress node of the fault condition.  This may involve
      different OAM functionality described in [OAMFwk], e.g.  Remote
      Defect Indication, Alarm reporting.

   o  The process of notifying the ingress node adds to the latency of
      the protection switching process, after the detection of the fault
      condition.

   o  While there is no need for double bandwidth for the data path,
      there is the necessity for the ring to maintain enough capacity
      for all of the data in both directions around the ring.







Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


2.3.  P2P ring protection using SPME

   The SPME concept was introduced by [TPFwk] to support management and
   monitoring an arbitrary segment of a transport.  However, an SPME is
   essentially a valid LSP that may be used to aggregate all LSP traffic
   that traverses the sub-path delineated by the SPME.  An SPME may be
   monitored using the OAM mechanisms as described in the MPLS-TP OAM
   Framework document [OAMFwk].

   When defining a MPLS-TP ring as a protection domain, there is a need
   to design a protection mechanism that protects all the LSPs that
   cross the MPLS-TP ring.  For this purpose, we associate a (working)
   SPME with the segment of the transport path that traverses the ring.
   In addition, we configure an alternate (protecting) SPME that
   traverses the ring in the opposite direction around the ring.  The
   exact selection of the SPMEs is dependent on the type of transport
   path and protection that is being implemented and will be detailed in
   the following sub-sections.

   Based on this architectural configuration for ring protection, it is
   possible to limit the number of alternate paths needed to protect the
   data traversing the ring.  In addition, since we will perform all of
   the OAM functionality on the SPME configured for the traffic, we can
   minimize the number of OAM sessions needed to monitor the data
   traffic of the ring - rather than monitoring each individual LSP.

   The following figure shows a MPLS-TP ring that is part of a larger
   MPLS-TP network.  The ring could be used as a network segment that
   may be traversed by numerous LSPs.  In particular, the figure shows
   that for all LSPs that connect to the ring at LSR-B and exit the ring
   from LSR-F, we configure two SPME through the ring (the first SPME
   traverses along B-A-F, and the second SPME traverses B-C-D-E-F).

                            ___          ___          ___
                    ======>/LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\======>
                           \_B_/########\_A_/########\_F_/
                             *@                       @*
                             *@                       @*
                             *@                       @*
                            _*@          ___          @*_
                           /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                           \_C_/@@@@@@@@\_D_/@@@@@@@@\_E_/

           ===> connected LSP    *** physical link
           ###  primary SPME      @@@ secondary SPME

                         Figure 2: A MPLS-TP ring




Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   In all of the following subsections, we use 1:1 linear protection
   [SurvivFwk] [LinProtect] to perform protection switching and
   coordination when a signal fault is detected.  The actual
   configuration of the SPMEs used may change dependent upon the choice
   of methodology and this will be detailed in the following sections.
   However, in all of these configurations the mechanism will be to
   transmit the data traffic on the primary SPME, while applying OAM
   functionality over both the primary and the secondary SPME to detect
   signal fault conditions on either path.  If a signal fault is
   detected on the primary SPME, then the mechanism described in
   [LinProtect] shall be used to coordinate a switch-over of data
   traffic to the secondary SPME.

   Assuming that the SPME is implemented as an hierarchical LSP, packets
   that arrive at LSR-B with a label stack [LI] will have the SPME label
   pushed at LSR-B and the LSP label will be swapped for the label that
   is expected by the egress LSR (i.e. the packet will arrive at LSR-A
   with a label stack of [PA1(B)|LE], arrive at LSR-F with [PE1(F)|LE]).
   The SPME label will be popped by LSR-F and the LSP label will be
   treated appropriately at LSR-F and forwarded along the LSP, outside
   the ring.  This scenario is true for all LSP that are aggregated by
   this primary SPME.

2.3.1.  Path SPME for Steering

   A p2p SPME that traverses part of a ring has two Maintenance Entity
   Group End Points (MEPs), each one acts as the ingress and egress in
   one direction of the bidirectional SPME.  Since the SPME is
   traversing a ring we can take advantage of another characteristic of
   a ring - there is always an alternative path between the two MEPs,
   i.e. traversing the ring in the opposite direction.  This alternative
   SPME can be defined as the protection path for the working path that
   is configured as part of the LSP and defined as a SPME.

   For each pair of SPMEs that are defined in this way, it is possible
   to verify the connectivity and continuity by applying the MPLS-TP OAM
   functionality to both the working and protection SPME.  If a
   discontinuity or mis-connectivity is detected then the MEPs will
   become aware of this condition, and could perform a protection switch
   of all LSPs to the alternate, protection SPME.

   This protection mechanism is identical to application of 1:1 linear
   protection[SurvivFwk] [LinProtect] to the pair of SPMEs.  Under
   normal conditions, all LSP data traffic will be transmitted on the
   working SPME.  If the linear protection is triggered, by either the
   OAM indication, an other fault indication trigger, or an operator
   command, then the MEPs will select the protection SPME to transmit
   all LSP data packets.



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   The protection SPME will continue to transmit the data packets until
   the stable recovery of the fault condition.  Upon recovery, the
   ingress LSR could switch traffic back to the working SPME, if the
   protection domain is configured for revertive behavior.

   The control of the protection switching, especially for cases of
   operator commands, would be covered by the protocol defined in
   [LinProtect].

2.3.2.  Wrapping with segment based SPME

   It is possible to use the SPME mechanism to perform segment-based
   protection.  For each link in the ring, we define two SPME - the
   first is a SPME between the two LSRs that are connected by the link,
   and the second SPME between these same two LSRs but traversing the
   entire ring (except the link that connects the LSRs).  In Figure 3 we
   show the primary SPME that connects LSR-A & LSR-F over a segment
   connection, and the secondary SPME that connects these same LSRs by
   traversing the ring in the opposite direction.

                         ___          ___          ___
                        /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                        \_B_/@@@@@@@@\_A_/########\_F_/
                          *@                        *@
                          *@                        *@
                          *@                        *@
                         _*@          ___          _*@
                        /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                        \_C_/@@@@@@@@\_D_/@@@@@@@@\_E_/


                       *** physical link
           ###  primary SPME      @@@ secondary SPME

                          Figure 3: Segment SPMEs

   By applying OAM monitoring of these two SPME (at each LSR), it is
   possible to affect a wrapping protection mechanism for the LSP
   traffic that traverses the ring.  The LSR on either side of the
   segment would identify that there is a fault condition on the link
   and redirect all LSP traffic to the secondary SPME.  The traffic
   would traverse the ring until arriving at the neighboring (relative
   to the segment) LSR.  At this point, the LSP traffic would be
   redirected onto the original LSP, quite likely over the neighboring
   SPME.

   Following the progression of the label stack through this switching
   operation (for a LSP that enters the ring at LSR B and exits the ring



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   at LSR E):

   1.  The data packet arrives at LSR-A with label stack [L1+S] (i.e.
       top label from the LSP and bottom-of-stack indicator)

   2.  In the normal case (no switching), LSR-A forwards the packet with
       label stack [PA1(F)|LSE+S] (i.e. swap the label for the LSP, to
       be acceptable to the SPME egress, and push the label for the
       primary SPME from LSR-A to LSR-F).

   3.  When switching is in-effect, LSR-A forwards the packet with label
       stack [PA2(B)|LSE+S] (i.e.  LSR-A pushed the label for the
       secondary SPME from LSR-A to LSR-F, after swapping the label of
       the lower level LSP).  This will be transmitted along the
       secondary SPME until LSR-E forwards it to LSR-F with label stack
       [PE2(F)|LSE+S].

   4.  When the packet arrives at LSR-F, it will pop the SPME label,
       process the LSP label, and forward the packet to the next point,
       possibly pushing a SPME label if the next segment is likewise
       protected.

2.3.3.  Wrapping node protection

   Implementation of protection at the node level would be similar to
   the mechanism described in the previous sub-section.  The difference
   would be in the SPMEs that are used.  For node protection, the
   primary SPME would be configured between the two LSR that are
   connected to the node that is being protected (see SPME between LSR-A
   and LSR-E through LSR-F in Figure 4), and the secondary SPME would be
   configured between these same nodes, going around the ring (see
   secondary SPME in Figure 4).


                        ___          ___          ___
                       /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                       \_B_/@@@@@@@@\_A_/########\_F_/
                         *@                        *#
                         *@                        *#
                         *@                        *#
                        _*@          ___          _*#
                       /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                       \_C_/@@@@@@@@\_D_/@@@@@@@@\_E_/

                     *** physical link
           ###  primary SPME      @@@ secondary SPME

                      Figure 4: Node-protection SPMEs



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   The protection mechanism would work similarly - based on 1:1 linear
   protection [SurvivFwk], triggered by OAM functions on both SPMEs, and
   wrapping the data packets onto the secondary SPME at the ingress MEP
   (e.g.  LSR-A in the figure) of the SPME and back onto the
   continuation of the LSP at the egress MEP (e.g.  LSR-E in the figure)
   of the SPME.

2.3.4.  Wrapping for link and node protection

   In the different types of wrapping presented in Section 2.3.2 and
   Section 2.3.3, there is a limitation that the protection mechanism
   must a priori decide whether it is protecting for link or node
   failure.  In addition, the neighboring LSR, that detects the fault,
   cannot readily differentiate between a link failure or a node
   failure.

   It would be possible to configure extra SPME to protect both for link
   and node failures, arriving at a configuration of the ring that is
   shown in Figure 5.  Choosing the SPME to use for the wrapping would,
   however, then involve considerable effort and could result in the
   protected traffic not sharing the same protection path in both
   directions.


                          ___ ++++++++ ___          ___
                         /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                         \_B_/@@@@@@@@\_A_/########\_F_/
                         $+*@                       +*$
                         $+*@                       +*$
                         $+*@                       +*$
                         $+*@ ++++++++ ___ ++++++++ +*$
                         /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                         \_C_/@@@@@@@@\_D_/@@@@@@@@\_E_/
                              $$$$$$$$     $$$$$$$$

                        *** physical link
           ###  primary SPME           @@@ secondary node#1 SPME
           $$$  secondary node#2 SPME  +++ secondary segment SPME

                 Figure 5: Segment & Node protection SPMEs

2.4.  Analysis of p2p protection

   Analyzing the mechanisms described in the above subsections we can
   point to the following observations (based on a ring with N nodes,
   assumed to be not more than 16):





Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   o  Number of SPME that need to be configured - for steeing SPME
      protection (Section 2.3.1) = O(2N^2) [two SPME from each ingress
      LSR to each other node in the ring], for wrapping based on SPME
      either as described in Section 2.3.2 and Section 2.3.3 = O(2N)
      [however, the operator must decide a priori on whether to protect
      for link failures or node failures at each point]

   o  Number of OAM sessions at each node - for steering = O(2N), for
      SPME wrapping = 3

   o  Bandwidth requirements - for SPME-based steering: single bandwidth
      at each link, for wrapping: double bandwidth at links that are
      between ingress and wrapping node and between second wrapping node
      and egress.

   o  Special considerations - for SPME based steering: latency of OAM
      detection of fault condition by ingress MEP [using Alarm-reporting
      could optimize over using CC-V only], for SPME wrapping: at each
      node must decide a priori whether protecting for link or node
      failures.  To protect for both node and link failures would
      increase the complexity of deciding which protection path to use,
      as well as, violating the co-routedness of the protected traffic.

   Based on this analysis, using steering as described in Section 2.3.1
   would be the recommended protection mechanism due to its simplicity,
   even though it may involve the use of additional resources (i.e.
   SPME) for monitorng the traffic.  It should be pointed out that the
   number of SPME involved in this protection could be reduced by
   eliminating SPME between pairs of LSR that are not used as an ingress
   and egress pair.


3.  P2MP protection

   [TPReqs] requires that ring protection must provide protection for
   unidirectional point-to-multipoint paths through the ring.  Ring
   topologies provide a ready platform for supporting such data paths.
   A p2mp LSP in an MPLS-TP ring would be characterized by a single
   ingress LSR and multiple egress LSRs.  The following sub-sections
   will present methods to address the protection of the ring-based
   sections of these LSP.

3.1.  Wrapping for p2mp LSP

   When protecting a p2mp ring data path using the wrapping
   architecture, the basic operation is similar to the description
   given, as the traffic has been wrapped back onto the normal working
   path on the far-side of the detected fault and will continue to be



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   transported to all of the egress points.

   It is possible to optimize the performance of the wrapping mechanism
   when applied to p2mp LSPs by exploiting the topology of ring
   networks.

   This improved mechanism, which we call Ring Optimized Multicast
   Wrapping (ROM-Wrapping), behaves much the same as classical wrapping.
   There is one difference - rather than configuring the protection LSP
   between the end nodes of a failed link (link protection) or between
   the upstream and downstream node of a failed node (node protection),
   the improved mechanism configures a protection p2mp LSP from the
   upstream (with respect to the failure) node and all egress nodes (for
   the particular LSP) downstream from the failure.

   Referring to Figure 6, it is possible to identify the protected
   (working) LSP (A-B-[C]-[D]-E-[F]) and one possible backup
   (protection) LSP.  This protection LSP will be used to wrap the data
   back around the ring to protect against a failure on link B-C.  This
   protection LSP is also a p2mp LSP that is configured with egress
   points (at nodes F, D, & C) complimentary to the broken working data
   path.

                                          |
                                          |
                                          V  Ingress
                       ___               _V_                ___
                      /LSR\             /LSR\**************/LSR\
                   <@@\_F_/@@@@@@@@@@@@@\_A_/@@@@@@@@@@@@@@\_B_/
                       @ *                                    *
                       @ *                                    *
                       @ *                                  XXXX Failure
                       @ *                                    *
                       @_*               ___                __*
                      /LSR\*************/LSR\**************/LSR\
                      \_E_/@@@@@@@@@@@@@\_D_/@@@@@@@@@@@@@@\_C_/
                                         @                  @
                                         @                  @
                                         V                  V


                       ***  working LSP      @@@ protection LSP

                        Figure 6: P2MP ROM Wrapping

   Using this mechanism, there is a need to configure a particular
   protection LSP for each node on the working LSP.  In the table below,
   "X's Backup" is the backup path activated by node X as a consequence



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   of a failure affecting node Y (downstream node with respect to X) or
   link X-Y, and square brackets, in the path,indicate egress nodes.

                   Protected LSP: A->B->[C]->[D]->E->[F]

                       ---- LINK/NODE PROTECTION----

              A's Backup:              A->[F]->E->[D]->[C]
              B's Backup:              B->A->[F]->E->[D]->[C]
              C's Backup:              C->B->A->[F]->E->[D]
              D's Backup:              D->C->B->A->[F]
              E's Backup:              E->D->C->B->A->[F]

   It should be noted that ROM-Wrapping is an LSP based protection
   mechanism, as opposed to the SPME based protection mechanisms that
   are presented in other sections of this draft.  While this may seem
   to be limited in scope, the mechanism may be very efficient for many
   applications that are based on p2mp distribution schemes.  While ROM-
   Wrapping can be applied to any network topology, it is particularly
   efficient for interconnected ring topologies.

3.1.1.  Comparison of Wrapping and ROM-Wrapping

   It is possible to compare the Wrapping and the ROM-Wrapping
   mechanisms in different aspects, and show some improvements offered
   by ROM-Wrapping.

   When configuring the protection LSP for Wrapping it is necessary to
   configure for a specific failure: link protection or node protection.
   If the protection method is configured to protect node failures but
   the actual failure affects a link, this could result in failing to
   deliver traffic to the node, when it should be possible to.

   ROM-Wrapping however does not have this limitation, because there is
   no distinction between node and link protection.  Whether link B-C or
   node C fails, in either case the rerouting will attempt to reach C.
   If the failure is on the link, the traffic will be delivered to C,
   while if the failure is at node C, the traffic will be rerouted
   correctly until node D, and will be blocked at this point.  However,
   all egress nodes up-to the failure will be able to deliver the
   traffic properly.

   A second aspect is the number of hops needed to properly deliver the
   traffic.  Referring to the example shown in Figure 6, where a failure
   is detected on link B-C, the following table lists the set of nodes
   traversed by the data in the protection:





Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


                              Basic Wrapping:

   A-B                   B-A-F-E-D-C              [C]-[D]-E-[F]
   "Upstream" segment    backup path              "Downstream" segment
   with respect to the                            with respect to the
   failure                                        failure

                               ROM Wrapping:

   A-B                  B-A-[F]-E-[D]-[C]        ..
   "Upstream" segment   backup path
   with respect to the
   failure

   Comparing the two lists of nodes, it is possible to see that in this
   particular case the number of hops crossed using the simple Wrapping
   is significantly higher than the number of hops crossed by the
   traffic when ROM-Wrapping is used.  Generally, the number of hops for
   basic Wrapping is always higher or at least equal compared to ROM-
   Wrapping.  This implies a certain waste of bandwidth on all links
   that are crossed in both directions.

   Considering the ring network previously seen, it is possible to do
   some bandwidth utilization considerations.  The protected LSP is set
   up from A to F clockwise and an M Mbps bandwidth is reserved along
   the path.  All the protection LSPs are pre-provisioned
   counterclockwise, each of them may also have reserved bandwidth M.
   These LSPs share the same bandwidth in a SE (Shared Explicit) [RSVP]
   style.

   The bandwidth reserved counterclockwise is not used when the
   protected LSP is properly working and could, in theory, be used for
   extra traffic [RFC4427].  However, it should be noted that [TPReqs]
   does not require support of such extra traffic.

   The two recovery mechanism require different protection bandwidths.
   In the case of Wrapping, the bandwidth used is M in both directions
   of many of the links.  While in case of ROM-Wrapping, only the links
   from the ingress node to the node performing the actual wrapping
   utilize M bandwidth in both directions, while all other links utilize
   M bandwidth only in the counterclockwise direction.

   Consider the case of a failure detected on link B-C as shown in
   Figure 6.  The following table lists the bandwidth utilization on
   each link (in units equal to M), for each recovery mechanism and for
   each direction (CW=clockwise, CCW=counterclockwise).





Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


                  +----------+----------+--------------+
                  |          | Wrapping | ROM-Wrapping |
                  +----------+----------+--------------+
                  | Link A-B |  CW+CCW  | CW+CCW       |
                  | Link A-F |    CCW   | CCW          |
                  | Link F-E |  CW+CCW  | CCW          |
                  | Link E-D |  CW+CCW  | CCW          |
                  | Link D-C |  CW+CCW  | CCW          |
                  +----------+----------+--------------+

3.1.2.  Multiple Failures Comparison

   A further comparison between Wrapping and ROM-Wrapping can be done
   with respect to their ability to react to multiple failures.  The
   wrapping recovery mechanism does not have the ability to recover from
   multiple failures on a ring network, while ROM-Wrapping is able to
   recover, from some multiple failures.

   Consider, for example, a double link failure affecting links B-C and
   C-D shown in Figure 6.  The Wrapping mechanism is not able to recover
   from the failure because B, upon detecting the failure, has no
   alternative paths to reach C. The whole P2MP traffic is lost.  The
   ROM-Wrapping mechanism is able to partially recover from the failure,
   because the backup P2MP LSP to node F and node D is correctly set up
   and continues delivering traffic.

3.2.  Steering for p2mp paths

   When protecting p2mp traffic that uses a MPLS-TP ring as its
   branching point, i.e. it enters the ring at a head-end node and exits
   the ring at multiple nodes, we can employ a steering mechanism based
   on 1+1 linear protection [SurvivFwk].  We can configure two p2mp
   unidirectional SPME from each node on the ring that traverse the ring
   in both directions.  These SPME will be configured with an egress at
   each ring node.  In order to be able to properly direct the LSP
   traffic to the proper egress point for that particular LSP, we need
   to employ context labeling as defined in [RFC5331].  The method for
   using these labels is expanded in section 3.2.1.

   For every LSP that enters the ring at a given node the traffic will
   be sent through both of these SPME, each with its own context label
   and the context-specific label for the particular LSP.  The egress
   nodes should select the traffic that is arriving on the working SPME.
   In case there is a failure condition, the egress nodes should select
   the traffic from whichever of the SPME that is arrives at that node,
   i.e. since one of the two (presumably the working SPME) will be
   blocked by the failure.  In this way, all egress nodes are able to
   receive the data traffic.  While each node detects that there is



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   connectivity from the ingress point, it continues to select the data
   that is coming from the working SPME.  If a particular node stops
   receiving the connectivity messages from the working SPME, it
   identifies that it must switch its selector to read the data packets
   from the protection SPME.

                               ^            ^            ^
                              _|_          _|_          _|_
                       ----->/LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                             \_A_/========\_B_/========\_C_/
                              +*              <+++++++++*||
                              +*                       +*||
                              +*                       +*||
                              +*                       +*||
                              +*_ ++++++++ ___ +++++++++*||
                             /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                             \_F_/<=======\_E_/========\_D_/
                               |            |            |
                               V            V            V

           ---> connected LSP      *** physical link
           ===  working SPME       +++ protection SPME

                           Figure 7: P2MP SPMEs

3.2.1.  Context labels

   Figure 7 shows the two unidirectional p2mp SPME that are configured
   from LSR-A with egress points at all of the nodes on the ring.  The
   clockwise SPME (i.e.  A-B-C-D-E-F) is configured as the working SPME,
   that will aggregate all traffic for p2mp LSPs that enter the ring at
   LSR-A and must be sent out of the ring at any subset of the ring
   nodes.  The counter-clockwise SPME (i.e.  A-F-E-D-C-B) is configured
   as the protection SPME.

   [RFC5331] defines the concept of context labels.  A context-
   identifying label defines a context label space that is used to
   interpret the context-specific labels (found directly below the
   context- identifying label) for a specific tunnel.  The SPME label is
   a context- identifying label.  This means that at each hop the node
   that receives the SPME label uses it to point not directly to a
   forwarding table, but to a LIB.  As a node receives an SPME label it
   examines it, discovers that it is a context label, pops off the SPME
   label, and looks up the next label down in the stack in the LIB
   indicated by the context label.

   The label below this context-identifying label should be used by the
   forwarding function of the node to decide the actions taken for this



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   packet.  In MPLS-TP ring protection there are two context LIBs.  One
   is the context LIB for the working SPME and the other is the context
   LIB for the P-SPME.  All context LIBs have a behavior defined for the
   e2e LSP label but the behavior at each node may be different in the
   context of each SPME.

   For example, using the ring that is shown in Figure 7, if the working
   SPME is configured to have a context-identifying label of CW at each
   node on the ring and the protection SPME is configured to have a
   context-identifying label of CP at each node.  For the specific LSP
   we will designate the context-specific label used on the working SPME
   as WL(x-y) to be the label used as node-x to forward the packet to
   node-y.  Similarly, for the context-specific labels on the protection
   SPME would be designated PL(x-y).  An explicit example of label
   values appears in the next sub-section.

   If we apply the 1+1 linear protection scheme outlined above for an
   p2mp LSP that enters the ring at LSR-A and has egress points from the
   ring at LSR-C and LSR-E using the two SPME shown in Figure 7 then a
   packet that arrives at LSR-A with a label stack [LI+S] will be
   forwarded on the working SPME with a label stack [CW | WL(A-B)].  The
   packet should then be forwarded to LSR-C arriving with a label [CW |
   WL(B-C)], where WL(B-C) should instruct the forwarding function to
   egress the packet with [LE(C)] and forward a copy to LSR-D with label
   stack [CW | WL(C-D)].

   If a fault condition is detected, then some of the nodes will cease
   to receive the packets from the clockwise (working) SPME.  These LSR
   should then begin to switch their selector bridge to accept the data
   packets from the protection SPME.  At the ingress point the packet
   will be transmitted on both the working SPME and the protection SPME.
   Continuing the example, if there is a failure on the link between
   LSR-C and LSR-D then LSR-A will transmit one copy of the data to
   LSR-B with stack [CW | WL(A-B)] and one copy to LSR-F with stack [CP
   | PL(A-F)].  The packet will arrive at LSR-C from the working SPME
   and egress from the ring.  LSR-E will receive the packet from the
   protection SPME with stack [CP | PL(F-E)] and the context-sensitive
   label PL(F-E) will instruct the forwarding function to send a copy
   out of the ring with label LE(E) and a second copy to LSR-D with
   stack [CP | PL(E-D)].  In this way each of the egress points receive
   the packet from the SPME that is available at that point.

   This architecture has the added advantages that there is no need for
   the ingress node to identify the existence of the mis-connectivity,
   and there is no need for a return path from the egress points to the
   ingress.





Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


3.2.2.  Walkthrough using context labels

   In order to better demonstrate the use of the context labels we
   present a walkthrough of an example application of the p2mp
   protection presented in this section.  Referring to Figure 8, there
   is a p2mp LSP that traverses the ring, entering the ring at LSR-B and
   branching off at LSR-D, LSR-E, and LSR-H and does not continue beyond
   LSR-H.  For purposes of protection two p2mp unidirectional SPME are
   configured on the ring starting from LSR-B.  One of the SPME, the
   working SPME, is configured with egress points at each of the LSR -
   C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, A. The second SPME, the protection SPME, is
   configured with egress points at each of the LSR - A, K, J, H, G, F,
   E, D, C.

                   ^            ^            ^           ^           ^
                  _|_ xxxxxxxxx_|_ xxxxxxxxxX|_xxxxxxxxxX|_ xxxxxxxx_|_
           xxxxx>/LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\*******/LSR\*******/LSR\
                 \_B_/========\_C_/========\_D_/=======\_E_/=======\_F_/
                   *+             <+++++++++    +++++++     ++++++++*||x
                   *+                                              +*||x
                   *+                                              +*||x
                   *+                                              +*||x
                  _*++++++++++ ___ +++++++++___ ++++++++___+++++++++*||x
                 /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\*******/LSR\*******/LSR\
                 \_A_/<=======\_K_/========\_J_/=======\_H_/=======\_G_/
                   |            |            |           |Xxxxxxxxxx |
                   V            V            V           V           V

           xxx p2mp LSP (X LSP egress)     *** physical link
           ===  working SPME               +++ protection SPME

                           Figure 8: P2MP SPMEs

   For this example we suppose that the LSP traffic enters the ring at
   LSR-B with the label stack [99], leaves the ring at LSR-D with stack
   [199], at LSR-E with stack [299], and LSR-H with stack [399].

   While it is possible for the context-identifying label for the SPME
   be configured as a different value at each LSR, for the sake of this
   example we will suppose a configuration of 200 as the context-
   identifying label for the working SPME at each of the LSR in the
   ring, and 400 as the context-identifying label for the protection
   SPME at each LSR.








Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   For the specific connected LSP we configure the following context-
   specific labels for each context:

   +------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
   | node | W-context(200)              | P-context(400)               |
   +------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+
   |   A  | 65 {drop packet}            | 165 {fwrd w/[400|190]}       |
   |   C  | 90 {fwrd w/[200|80]}        | 190 {drop packet}            |
   |   D  | 80 {fwrd w/[200|75] +       | 180 {egress w/[199]}         |
   |      | egress w/[199]}             |                              |
   |   E  | 75 {fwrd w/[200|65] +       | 175 {fwrd w/[400|180] +      |
   |      | egress w/[299]}             | egress w/[299]}              |
   |   F  | 65 {fwrd w/[200|55]}        | 165 {fwrd w/[400|175]}       |
   |   G  | 55 {fwrd w/[200|45]}        | 155 {fwrd w/[400|165]}       |
   |   H  | 45 {egress w/[399]}         | 145 {fwrd w/[400|155] +      |
   |      |                             | egress w/[399]}              |
   |   J  | 65 {drop packet}            | 165 {fwrd w/[400|145]}       |
   |   K  | 65 {drop packet}            | 190 {fwrd w/[400|165]}       |
   +------+-----------------------------+------------------------------+

   When a packet arrives on the LSP to LSR-B with stack [99], the
   forwarding function determines that it is necessary to forward the
   packet to both the working SPME with stack [200|90] and the
   protection SPME with stack [400|165].  Each LSR on the SPME will
   identify the top label, i.e. 200 or 400, to be the context-
   identifying label and use the next label in the stack to select the
   forwarding action from the specific context table.

   Therefore, at LSR-C the packet on the working SPME will arrive with
   stack [200|90] and the 200 will point to the table in the middle
   column above.  After popping the 200 the next label, i.e. 90, will
   select the forwarding action "fwrd w/[200|80]" and the packet will be
   forwarded to LSR-D with stack [200|80].  In this manner, the packet
   will be forwarded along both SPME according to the configured
   behavior in the context tables.  However, the egress points at LSR D,
   E, & H, will all be configured with a selector bridge to only use the
   input from the working SPME.  If any of these egress points identify
   that there is a connection fault on the working SPME, then the
   selector bridge will cause the LSR to read the input from the
   protection SPME.


4.  Coordination protocol

   The Survivability Framework [SurvivFwk] indicates that there is a
   need to coordinate protection switching between the end-points of a
   protected bidirectional domain.  The coordination is necessary for
   particular cases, in order to maintain the co-routed nature of the



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   bidirectional transport path.  The particular cases where this
   becomes necessary include cases of unidirectional fault detection and
   use of operator commands.

   By using the same mechanisms defined in [LinProtect], for linear
   protection, to apply for ring protection we are able to gain a
   consistent solution for this coordination between the end-points of
   the protection domain.  The Protection State Coordination Protocol
   that is specified in [LinProtect] provides coverage for all the
   coordination cases, including support for operator commands, e.g.
   Forced-Switch.


5.  Conclusions and Recommendations

   Ring topologies are prevelant in traditional transport networks and
   will continue to be used for various reasons.  Protection for
   transport paths that traverse a ring within a MPLS network can be
   provided by applying an appropriate instance of linear protection, as
   defined in [SurvivFwk].  This document has shown that for each of the
   traditional ring protection architectures there is an application of
   linear protection that provides efficient coverage, based on the use
   of the Sub-Path Maintenance Entity (SPME), defined in [TPFwk] and
   [OAMFwk].  For example,

   o  p2p Steering - Configuration of two SPME, from ring ingress to
      ring egress, and 1:1 linear protection

   o  p2p Wrapping for link protection - Configuration of two SPME, one
      for the protected link and the second using the long route between
      the two neighboring nodes, and 1:1 linear protection.

   o  p2p Wrapping for node protection - Configuration of two SPME, one
      between the two neighbors of the protected node and the second
      between these two nodes on the long route, and 1:1 linear
      protection.

   o  p2mp Wrapping - it is possible to optimize the performance of the
      wrapping by configuring the proper protection path to egress the
      data at the proper branching nodes.

   o  p2mp Steering - by combining 1+1 linear protection and
      configuration of the SPME based on context-sensitive labeling of
      the protection path.

   It has been shown that this set of protection architecture and
   mechanisms are optimized based on the criteria defined in [TPReqs]
   for justification of designing a specific protection mechanism for a



Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   ring topology.  This thereby aleviates the necessity to create a new
   mechanism or protocol to support the protection of ring topologies.

   By basing the simple p2p ring protection on basic 1:1 linear
   protection there is a very efficient way of implementing Steering
   protection for the sections of a transport path that traverses the
   ring.  Steering should be the preferred mechanism for ring protection
   since it reduces the extra bandwidth required when traffic doubles
   through wrapped protection, and the ability to protect both against
   link and node failures without complicating the fault detection or
   the need to configure multiple protection paths.  While this is true,
   the possiblity remains to support either mechanism while depending
   upon the OAM functionality [outlined in [OAMFwk] and specified in
   various documents] and the coordination protocol specified for linear
   protection in [LinProtect].


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.


7.  Security Considerations

   To be added in future version.


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank all members of the teams (the Joint
   Working Team, the MPLS Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the
   T-MPLS Ad Hoc Group in ITU-T) involved in the definition and
   specification of MPLS Transport Profile.


9.  Informative References

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              May 2005.

   [RFC5331]  Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
              Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
              RFC 5331, Aug 2008.




Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   [TPReqs]   Niven-Jenkins, B., Nadeau, T., and C. Pignataro,
              "Requirements for the Transport Profile of MPLS",
              RFC 5654, April 2009.

   [TPFwk]    Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., and L. Levrau, "MPLS-TP
              Framework", RFC 5921, May 2010.

   [OAMFwk]   Niven-Jenkins, B., Allan, D., and I. Busi, "MPLS-TP OAM
              Framework", RFC 6371, May 2010.

   [SurvivFwk]
              Sprecher, N. and A. Farrel, "MPLS-TP Survivability
              Framework", RFC 6372, June 2010.

   [LinProtect]
              Sprecher, N., Bryant, S., van Helvoort, H., Fulignoli, A.,
              and Y. Weingarten, "MPLS-TP Linear Protection", RFC 6378,
              October 2009.

   [RSVP]     Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Functional
              Specifications", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC4427]  Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Recovery (Protection and
              Restoration) Terminology for GMPLS", RFC 4427, March 2006.

   [G.841]    ITU, "Types and characteristics of SDH network protection
              architectures", ITU-T G.841, October 1998.


Authors' Addresses

   Yaacov Weingarten
   34 Hagefen St.
   Karnei Shomron,   4485500
   Israel

   Phone:
   Email: wyaacov@gmail.com


   Stewart Bryant
   Cisco
   United Kingdom

   Email: stbryant@cisco.com





Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   Nurit Sprecher
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B
   Hod Hasharon,   45241
   Israel

   Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com


   Danielle Ceccarelli
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova, Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com


   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova, Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com


   Francesco Fondelli
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova, Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com


   Marco Corsi
   Altran
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova, Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: corsi.marco@gmail.com








Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP RP                     April 2012


   Bo Wu
   ZTE Corporation
   4F,RD Building 2,Zijinghua Road
   Nanjing, Yuhuatai District
   P.R.China

   Email: wu.bo@zte.com.cn


   Xuehui Dai
   ZTE Corporation
   4F,RD Building 2,Zijinghua Road
   Nanjing, Yuhuatai District
   P.R.China

   Email: dai.xuehui@zte.com.cn



































Weingarten, et al.      Expires October 31, 2012               [Page 28]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/