draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-07.txt   draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-08.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Experimental R. Torvi, Ed. Intended status: Experimental R. Torvi, Ed.
Expires: February 9, 2017 Juniper Networks Expires: March 5, 2017 Juniper Networks
August 8, 2016 September 1, 2016
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress Local Protection Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress FRR Protection
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-07.txt draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-08.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node
of a Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP), which is a of a Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP), which is a
Point-to-Point (P2P) LSP or a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) LSP. Point-to-Point (P2P) LSP or a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) LSP.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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 February 9, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 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 23 skipping to change at page 3, line 23
protecting its ingress node and transit nodes. Protecting an ingress protecting its ingress node and transit nodes. Protecting an ingress
is not covered either in the fast-reroute method defined in [RFC4090] is not covered either in the fast-reroute method defined in [RFC4090]
or in the P2MP fast-reroute extensions to fast-reroute in [RFC4875]. or in the P2MP fast-reroute extensions to fast-reroute in [RFC4875].
An alternate approach to local protection (fast-reroute) is to use An alternate approach to local protection (fast-reroute) is to use
global protection and set up a secondary backup LSP (whether P2MP or global protection and set up a secondary backup LSP (whether P2MP or
P2P) from a backup ingress to the egresses. The main disadvantage of P2P) from a backup ingress to the egresses. The main disadvantage of
this is that the backup LSP may reserve additional network bandwidth. this is that the backup LSP may reserve additional network bandwidth.
This specification defines a simple extension to RSVP-TE for local This specification defines a simple extension to RSVP-TE for local
protection of the ingress node of a P2MP or P2P LSP. protection (FRR) of the ingress node of a P2MP or P2P LSP. Ingress
local protection and ingress FRR protection will be used
exchangeably.
2.1. An Example of Ingress Local Protection 2.1. An Example of Ingress Local Protection
Figure 1 shows an example of using a backup P2MP LSP to locally Figure 1 shows an example of using a backup P2MP LSP to locally
protect the ingress of a primary P2MP LSP, which is from ingress R1 protect the ingress of a primary P2MP LSP, which is from ingress R1
to three egresses: L1, L2 and L3. The backup LSP is from backup to three egresses: L1, L2 and L3. The backup LSP is from backup
ingress Ra to the next hops R2 and R4 of ingress R1. ingress Ra to the next hops R2 and R4 of ingress R1.
[R2]******[R3]*****[L1] [R2]******[R3]*****[L1]
* | **** Primary LSP * | **** Primary LSP
skipping to change at page 23, line 16 skipping to change at page 23, line 16
reliable. Any failure on the path of the BFD from an egress node reliable. Any failure on the path of the BFD from an egress node
to an ingress node may cause the BFD down to indicate the failure to an ingress node may cause the BFD down to indicate the failure
of the ingress node. of the ingress node.
o The speed of protection against the failure of the ingress node o The speed of protection against the failure of the ingress node
may be slow. may be slow.
The ingress local protection proposed in this draft will resolve the The ingress local protection proposed in this draft will resolve the
above issues. above issues.
The Pseudowire (PW) protection in PALS is a different level
protection than the TE LSP tunnel protection in TEAS. The former is
about protecting a PW, which is one level above an LSP tunnel.
Draft "Dual-Homing Protection for MPLS and MPLS-TP Pseudowires" in
PALS describes a framework and several scenarios for Pseudowire (PW)
dual-homing protection, which protects the failures in the Attachment
Circuit (AC) or PW side. For protecting a working PW (against the
failure of the primary PW ingress such as PE1), an end-to-end
protection PW from a backup PW ingress such as PE2 is created. The
protection PW crosses the network from a PE connecting to a CE to
another PE connecting to another CE.
Appendix B. Authors' Addresses Appendix B. Authors' Addresses
Huaimo Chen Huaimo Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Boston, MA Boston, MA
USA USA
Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com
Raveendra Torvi Raveendra Torvi
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
skipping to change at page 24, line 23 skipping to change at page 24, line 37
Email: tsaad@cisco.com Email: tsaad@cisco.com
Fengman Xu Fengman Xu
Verizon Verizon
2400 N. Glenville Dr 2400 N. Glenville Dr
Richardson, TX 75082 Richardson, TX 75082
USA USA
Email: fengman.xu@verizon.com Email: fengman.xu@verizon.com
Mehmet Toy Mehmet Toy
Comcast
1800 Bishops Gate Blvd.
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
USA USA
Email: mehmet_toy@cable.comcast.com Email: mtoy054@yahoo.com
Lei Liu Lei Liu
UC Davis
USA USA
Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 22 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/