The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile Survivability Framework ' <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-06.txt> as an Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-06.txt Technical Summary This document specifies the taxonomy for MPLS-TP survivability, the surviability architecture and key components need to meet survivability requiremetns. Network survivability is the network's ability to recover traffic delivery following the failure or degradation of traffic caused by a network fault or a denial of service attacks. Survivability isa critical characteristic of reliable services in transport networks. The MPLS transport profiles are designed to be consistent with existing transport network operations and management models. Some of the MPLS transport profile recovery mechanisms do not depend on a control plane but use OAM mechanisms or management actions to trigger recovery actions. MPLS and GMPLS protection mechanisms are applicable in for the MPLS transport profiles. It is also be possible to provision and manage the related protection entities and functions defined in MPLS and GMPLS using the management plane. Regardless of whether an OAM, management, or control plane initiation mechanism is used, the protection-switching operation is a data-plane operation. Working Group Summary Since the document is an output from the MPLS-TP project it is the joint output of several IETF working groups and Qustion 9, 10, 12 and 14 of ITU-T SG15. Document Quality The document is well reviewed in all the groups mentioned above. Personnel Loa Andersson is Document Shepherd for this document. Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note =========== 1) Section 1.2: r/in[RFC4427]/in [RFC4427] 2) Section 2: I a verb is missing: The terms "defect" and "failure" are used interchangeably to indicate any defect or failure in the sense that they defined in ^ are [G.806]. 3) Section 4.1: r/OAM mechanisms ,/OAM mechanisms, 4) Section 4.1.3: Add period: [MPLS-TP-OAM-Framework]. ^ 5) Section 4.4.2: Add period: (1:n or m:n). ^ 6) Section 4.4.3: Add period: service degradation. ^ 7) Section 4.7: Missing ): (see Section 4.5 associated with the protection function. 8) Section 4.7.6: Extra "1"?: Additionally, note that the shared-protection resources could be used 1 to carry extra traffic, for example, in Figure 4, an LSP JPQRK ^ ? 9) Section 6.1.1: Missing period: etc.). ^ 10) Section 6.1.2: Missing periods (X2): recovery entity. ^ 11) Section 6.4: r/(Maintenance Group Intermediate Points (MIPs)/MIPs (Maintenance Group Intermediate Points) 12) Section 6.5: r/t1he/the =========== Add a new last para to section 4.3.2 In an MPLS-TP network, the degree to which a resource is shared between LSPs is a policy issue. This policy may be applied to the resource or to the LSPs, and may be pre-configured, configured per LSP and installed during LSP establishment, or may be dynamically configured. ========================== In Section 4.7.4 Old An in-band, data-plane protocol for use in MPLS-TP networks will be documented in [MPLS-TP-Linear-Protection] for this purpose. New An in-band, data-plane protocol for use in MPLS-TP networks will be documented in [MPLS-TP-Linear-Protection] for linear protection (ring protection is discussed in Section 4.8 of this document). ========================== In Section 1.4. Scope of this Framework Please change all instances of the word "level" to "grade" In Section 4 Functional Architecture (main section) Please change the word "level" to "grade" In Section 4.1.1. Operator Control Please change the word "level" to "grade" In Section 4.3 Level of Recovery (main section) Please change the word "level" to "grade" In Section 4.3.2 Shared protection Please change the word "level" to "grade" In Section 4.4.1 Link-Level Protection OLD Link-level protection offers the following levels of protection: NEW Link-level protection offers the following grades of protection: END In Section 4.4.2. Alternate Paths and Segments OLD Different levels of protection may be provided: NEW Different grades of protection may be provided: END In Section 4.4.3. Protection Tunnels OLD Different levels of protection may be provided: NEW Different grades of protection may be provided: END In Section 4.6. Protection in Different Topologies OLD concatenation of recovery domains, each providing some level of recovery in part of the network. NEW concatenation of recovery domains, each providing some grade of recovery in part of the network. END In Section 4.9. Recovery in Layered Networks Please change all instances of the word "level" to "grade". However please DO NOT change "Layered" in the title of this section. In Section 7. Pseudowire Recovery Considerations OLD The pseudowire may, itself, require a level of protection, in order to meet the service-level guarantees of its SLA. NEW The pseudowire may, itself, require protection, in order to meet the service-level guarantees of its SLA. END =============================== Change title of section OLD 4.2. Elements of Recovery NEW 4.2. Recovery Scope END =============================== In Section 4.2.1. Span Recovery OLD Moving the protected LSP to another TE link between the same pair of neighbors is a form of segment recovery and is described in Section 4.2.2. NEW Moving the protected LSP to another TE link between the same pair of neighbors is a form of segment recovery and not a form of span recovery. Segment Recovery is described in Section 4.2.2. END ============================== In Section 4.3. Levels of Recovery New last paragraph The selection of the recovery grade and schemes to satisfy the service grades for an LSP using available network resources is subject to network and local policy and may be pre-designated through network planning or may be dynamically determined by the network. ============================ In Section 4.4.3. Protection Tunnels OLD A protection tunnel is a hierarchical LSP that is pre-provisioned in order to protect against a failure condition along a sequence of spans in the network. NEW A protection tunnel is pre-provisioned in order to protect against a failure condition along a sequence of spans in the network. This may be achieved using LSP heirarchy. END ============================ _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
