slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
66th IETF Meeting Montreal PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
66th IETF Meeting Montreal

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 7

66th IETF Meeting Montreal - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Rajiv Papneja ( ) Samir Vapiwala ( sva m ) Jay Karthik ( ) Scott Poretsky ( ) LE ROUX Jean-Louis( Shankar Rao ( ).

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '66th IETF Meeting Montreal' - nelson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Rajiv Papneja (

Samir Vapiwala (

Jay Karthik (

Scott Poretsky (

LE ROUX Jean-Louis(

Shankar Rao (

IETF BMWGMPLS Protection MechanismsStatus and Update

66th IETF Meeting


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
feedbacks on frr protection meth draft so far so good
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
highlights of merged draft
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
current status
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
  • 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