Rajiv%20Papneja%20([e-mail])

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)
• LE ROUX Jean-Louis(jeanlouis.leroux_at_orange-ft.com
• Shankar Rao (shankar.rao_at_qwest.com)

66th IETF Meeting Montreal
2
History/Background And Progress So Far
3
draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge

• After an overwhelming support on the list 2
  complementing methodology drafts were merged
• All the comments to the 2 drafts were addressed
  in the merged draft
• Methodology for benchmarking MPLS Protection
  mechanisms
• draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge-00.txt

4
Feedbacks on FRR Protection Meth Draft So far
So Good

• Overall there seems to be great amount of
  interest in this work
• As more and more ISPs consider deploying this
  feature, they are looking towards a uniform
  methodology and terminology across multiple FRR
  implementations
• Many comments on Traffic Generation section
• Requests to provide more information on failure
  detection times (may not be negligible)
• Need to describe about RSVP refresh along backup
  path
• Suggestion to add background traffic
• When talking of of labels need to specify where
  
• BFD timer info missing in reporting format
• Significance of having large number of scenarios
• Nits, Some more clarifications and other
  editorial work
• Recommendation to highlight importance of
  correlated failures

5
Highlights of merged draft

• Retain the key elements of both drafts
• draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt
• draft-poretsky-mpls-protection-meth-05.txt
• Avoid any duplicate test cases or procedures
• Incorporate comments received for both the drafts
• Simplify topologies
• Total of eight scenarios presented in the merged
  draft
• Use common terminology as defined in
• Draft-poretsky-protection-term-02.txt
• Incorporates all the received on this item
• Including the responses received for the proposal

6
Current Status

• Current Status - Waiting to hear from WG
  Leadership on the Acceptance of the Work Item
• As per previous meeting minutes
• Appears more than significant interest in the
  BMWG working
• The interest has reached its peak
• 70 of attendees in the last meeting supported
  the work item
• The authors submitted the official proposal on
  May 3 and call for support ended June 2, 2006
• No negative support received
• Overwhelming support on the mailing in favor of
  making this as work group item
• Merged draft was submitted on June 19th, 2006
• Current Milestones
• "Terminology For Protection Benchmarking, -
  draft-poretsky-protection-term-02.txt,
• Ready for WGLC 07/06 and Ready for IESG 11/06.
• "Methodology For MPLS Protection Benchmarking, -
  draft-papneja-mpls-protection-meth-merge-00.txt
• Submitted 06/06 and Ready for WGLC 11/06
• Ready for IESG 04/07

7
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 Villamizer
• Jean Philip Vasseur
• Karu Ratnam
• Arun Gandhi
• We would like to thank Agilent for their review
  of this draft and execution of the methodology to
  ensure its correctness