draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements-01.txt 
Network Working Group Z. Cui Network Working Group Z. Cui
Internet-Draft R. Winter Internet-Draft R. Winter
Intended status: Informational NEC Intended status: Informational NEC
Expires: August 4, 2016 H. Shah Expires: February 4, 2017 H. Shah
Ciena Ciena
S. Aldrin S. Aldrin
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
M. Daikoku M. Daikoku
KDDI KDDI
February 1, 2016 August 3, 2016
Use Cases and Requirements for MPLS-TP multi-failure protection Use Cases and Requirements for MPLS-TP multi-failure protection
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements-00 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements-01
Abstract Abstract
For the Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) For the Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
linear protection capable of 1+1 and 1:1 protection has already been linear protection capable of 1+1 and 1:1 protection has already been
defined. That linear protection mechanism has not been designed for defined. That linear protection mechanism has not been designed for
handling multiple, simultaneously occuring failures, i.e. multiple handling multiple, simultaneously occuring failures, i.e. multiple
failures that affect the working and the protection entity during the failures that affect the working and the protection entity during the
same time period. In these situations currently defined protection same time period. In these situations currently defined protection
mechanisms would fail. mechanisms would fail.
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 4, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 4, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 6 skipping to change at page 3, line 6
survivability through careful network design and appropriate survivability through careful network design and appropriate
technical means is important. technical means is important.
In MPLS-TP networks, a basic end-to-end linear protection In MPLS-TP networks, a basic end-to-end linear protection
survivability technique is available as specified in [RFC6378], survivability technique is available as specified in [RFC6378],
[RFC7271] and [RFC7324]. That protocol however is limited to 1+1 and [RFC7271] and [RFC7324]. That protocol however is limited to 1+1 and
1:1 protection and not designed to handle multiple failures that 1:1 protection and not designed to handle multiple failures that
affect both the working and protection entity at the same time. affect both the working and protection entity at the same time.
There are various scenarios where multi-failure protection is an There are various scenarios where multi-failure protection is an
important requirement for network survivability. E.g for disaster important requirement for network survivability. E.g. for disaster
recovery, after catastrophic events such as earthquakes or tsunamis. recovery, after catastrophic events such as earthquakes or tsunamis.
During the period after such events, network availability is crucial, During the period after such events, network availability is crucial,
in particular for high-priority services such as emergency telephone in particular for high-priority services such as emergency telephone
calls. Existing 1+1 or 1:n protection however is limited to cover calls. Existing 1+1 or 1:n protection however is limited to cover
single failures which has proven as not sufficient during past single failures which has proven as not sufficient during past
events. events.
Beyond the natural disaster use case above, multi-failure protection Beyond the natural disaster use case above, multi-failure protection
is also beneficial in situations where the network is particularly is also beneficial in situations where the network is particularly
vulnerable, e.g., when a working entity or protection entity was vulnerable, e.g., when a working entity or protection entity was
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
5 lines changed or deleted 5 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/