Rajiv Papneja rpapnejaisocore'com

1
IETF BMWGMPLS Protection MechanismsStatus and
Update

• Rajiv Papneja (rpapneja_at_isocore.com)
• Samir Vapiwala (svapiwala_at_cisco.com)
• Jay Karthik (jkarthik_at_cisco.com)
• Scott Poretsky (sporetsky_at_reefpoint.com)
• JL Le Roux (jeanlouis.leroux_at_orange-ft.com
• Shankar Rao (shankar.rao_at_qwest.com)

67th IETF Meeting San Diego
2
History/Background And Progress So Far
Terminology For Protection
Benchmarking
Benchmarking Methodology for MPLS Protection
draft
-
kimura
-
protection
-
term
-
00
.
txt
-

October
2002
Mechanisms

draft
-
kimura
-
protection
-
term
-
01
.
txt
-

April
2003
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
00
June
2003
Parallel Efforts
draft
-
kimura
-
protection
-
term
-
02
.
txt

October
2003
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
01
Oct
.
2003
draft
-
kimura
-
protection
-
term
-
02
.
txt

April
2005
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
02
Feb
2004
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
03
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
04
Created single work item
July
2005
with common Terminology
Common Terminology created With Effort
led by Kimura
-
san
Received numerous comments for
additional test cases and
benchmarking metrics
Terminology For Protection
e
l
b
a
Benchmarking

July
2005
c
i
l
p
p
draft
-
poretsky
-
protection
-
term
-
00
.
txt
A
Created
draft
-
poretsky
-
mpls
-
protection
-
meth
-
05
Feb
2006
December 2005 More Protection Scenarios Proposed
Under
Final WG Item
draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt
Work Group Item 1. draft-ietf-bmwg-protectio
n-meth-00.txt 2. draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-0
0.txt
Mailing List Decision
to Merge The two Efforts

Followed by action item
from Dallas IETF
WG Item
Final Decision
1
.
Significant Interest in the effort
2
.
Interest has reached peak
3
.
Formal Proposal Submitted to the Mailing list
4
.
/
Significant support received
5
.
New Merged Draft Submitted
3
Draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-00.txt

• After an overwhelming support on the list two
  complementing protection benchmarking methodology
  drafts were merged
• draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge-00.txt
• Further comments from the IETF 66 were
  incorporated to produce
• Draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth-00.txt
• Draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-00.txt

4
Update from Previous Version

• Retain the key elements of both drafts
• draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt
• draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-05.txt
• Added reviews and addressed comments received on
• Draft-papneja-protection-meth-merge-00.txt
• Removed any duplicate test cases or procedures
• Simplified topologies and added self explanatory
  terms to the diagrams
• Use common terminology as defined in
• draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term-00.txt
• Added a basic MPLS benchmarking test

5
Next Steps

• Need for WG feedback on this new working group
  Item
• What specific aspects would benefit from WG
  review?
• Ensuring all FRR scenarios are covered
• Ensuring all failure scenarios are covered by the
  current version
• Input on the traffic profiling, that might assist
  in automations
• New Terminologies
• What issues are we seeking the WG's help to
  resolve?
• Finalizing the terms in the terminology document,
  and agreement with the definitions
• We look forward for the WG to advise on any issue
  with this work item
• Looking forward to be ready for WG Last Call

6
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 Villamizar
• Jean Philippe Vasseur
• Karu Ratnam
• Arun Gandhi